Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study aims to examine the schooling experiences of four individuals with disabilities in South Korea. It seeks to explore the complexities of their experiences in both inclusive education classrooms and special education schools. This study presents their stories by incorporating counternarratives in which the participants are agentic in producing their narratives, assigning new meaning to lived experiences. Their stories were obtained through a series of three in-depth interviews with each participant. The model of phenomenological interviewing was used to explore the meaning of their experiences in the context of their lives. The findings in this study illustrate multi-faceted and multi-layered aspects of inclusion, encompassing both academic and social experiences. It is crucial to look beyond what is being told about inclusion by the numerical increase of inclusive classroom placements and consider how to create a welcoming community for individuals with disabilities beyond the physical placements of inclusive classrooms or special education schools.

Keywords

individuals with disabilities schooling experiences counternarratives inclusion special education in South Korea

Introduction

Joni Mitchell’s song “Both Sides Now” represents a holistic viewpoint of the world that perceives both the “something lost, and something gained” of a situation that evolves and changes over time based on experiences. Such a holistic viewpoint was perceived in our study with the purpose of exploring the complex nature of the schooling experiences of women with physical disabilities in South Korea. This study seeks to capture both sides of special education schools and inclusive education settings through the women’s retrospective memories, delving into complexities and impacts encountered throughout the school year. The participants in this study are agentic in producing counternarratives (Bamberg, 2004), which assign new meaning to lived experiences, in contrast to master narratives (Andrews, 2004), which are dominant constructions assumed to be the normative experience. Through their stories, we also examine the altering meaning of inclusion for individuals with disabilities in Korean society. As Korean society went through dynamic changes in terms of laws and policies related to disability rights and special education, it is noteworthy to interpret their stories through the expansion of inclusive education with the full knowledge that inclusive education is multifaceted and a highly complex endeavor (Connor & Berman, 2019).

The current study is based on the assumption that disability is a complex phenomenon, reflecting an interaction between the features of a person’s body and the features of the society in which he or she lives (World Health Organization (WHO], 2013). Disability is not simply an “objective” condition but also a social characteristic of a person, influenced by a complex interaction of culture, education, economic status, gender, religion, exposure to media, and myriad other factors, including the subjective understanding of one’s condition (Lee & Bursztyn, 2011). South Korea is one of the few countries where nationality and ethnicity coincide. Homogeneity, solidarity, oneness, and conformity with the norm are consciously and subconsciously ingrained in the lives of individuals and families. In this sociocultural context, it is harder to escape stigmatization for individuals whose disabilities are more visible (Lee & Bursztyn, 2011). Their disabled bodies are more likely to stand out in Korean society. This study focuses on individuals with physical disabilities to explore how the visibility of physical disabilities may present different types of schooling experiences. Their visibly disabled bodies stood out from the crowd and affected their positions differently in various school settings. The intersectionality of disabilities and gender is an important part of understanding experiences of the participants, yet in this study, the participants were intentionally referred to as individuals with disabilities, not women with disabilities. We would like to focus just on their experiences as students with physical disabilities in the context of Korean schools and society.

Literature Review

The concept of inclusion in schools is based on the foundational principles of the UNESCO Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education (UNESCO, 1994). The Salamanca Statement emphasizes the importance of diversity and the necessity for institutions to provide appropriate measures to support the learning and needs of every child (UNESCO, 1994). One of the essential ideas generated from the statement is that inclusive settings play a significant role in combating discriminatory attitudes, creating welcoming communities, and achieving education for all (Ainscow et al., 2019). Key concepts, definitions, and practices of inclusive education have been discussed from various angles as inclusive education research has become a global phenomenon produced in most countries worldwide (Hernández-Torrano et al., 2020). Personal and collective philosophies (Graham & Slee, 2008) and culture have significantly impacted theoretical and methodological approaches to understanding inclusion. Meta-analyses of the scholarship on inclusion (e.g., Hernández-Torrano et al., 2020; Messiou, 2017) have revealed that inclusive education is understood and interpreted differently depending on social contexts with given educational policies and laws.

Despite policies and legislative mandates, inclusion remains a rather complex and abstract concept (Szumski et al., 2017), open to interpretation by policymakers. One of the primary reasons for this discrepancy between ideology and implementation is that many of the strong supporters of inclusive education are neither in the classroom nor servicing in the field (Bricker, 2000). Although policies for inclusion are in place to improve the lives of people with disabilities, there is a lack of participation by individuals with disability in research regarding inclusion. The voices of disabled people themselves are not prevalent in research about disability (Sherry, 2016). Research on inclusion has not been explicitly connected to the lived experiences of the individuals who experience disability day in and day out (Valente & Danforth, 2016). John and Walmsley (2003) argued that inclusive research involving people with disabilities as active participants is necessary to address any issues or ways to better support people with disabilities. Similarly, Herman (2007) emphasized that the significant discrepancy between what is “told” and what is actually “lived” needs to be deliberated in order to gain proper insight into an issue. As the number of students placed in inclusive educational settings continues to rise, it is crucial to move beyond quantitative measures and focus on the qualitative realities of these experiences. Hearing directly from individuals with disabilities provides deeper insight into the effectiveness and impact of inclusive policies. This growing recognition of the need to foreground lived experiences in discussions of laws and policies has led to the emergence of counternarratives—a research approach that challenges dominant perspectives and amplifies the voices of those who have been historically marginalized (Miller et al., 2020).

Counternarratives were first developed within the Critical Race Theory (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995) with the goal of presenting the voices of marginalized communities. This type of research focuses on doing research “with” the participants rather than “on” the participants (Berman, 2009). In addition to traditional qualitative interviewing techniques, numerous researchers (e.g., Annamma et al., 2018) have found it essential to develop alternative and innovative strategies to foreground the “voices” of traditionally marginalized research participants. Through counternarratives, individuals offer perspectives that challenge social expectations and widespread beliefs and problematize dominant viewpoints on human experiences—in this case, lived experiences of inclusion and exclusion (Lalvani & Polvere, 2013; Solórzano & Yosso, 2002). Scholars of disabilities studies in education have challenged the one-size-fits-all inclusion paradigm through the stories of teachers (e.g., McDevitt, 2021; Valente & Danforth, 2016) and parents (e.g., Connor & Berman, 2019). Based on the belief that inclusion and student voices are interconnected, Messiou (2019) has also argued that the involvement of students can be a significant factor in promoting inclusive development. However, researchers have rarely addressed how the views of individuals with disabilities may change over time and across contexts. Therefore, it is important to incorporate storytelling and alternative voices of individuals with disabilities based on their lived experiences (Smith-Chandler & Swart, 2014).

To understand inclusive education in the Korean context, it is essential to examine the evolution of special education laws over time. Public interest in special education in South Korea grew not only through domestic policy developments but also through international influences, such as the Declaration of the Rights of Disabled Persons adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1975 (OHCHR, 1975) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) passed by the U.S. Congress in 1975 (Lipkin et al., 2015). South Korea’s first special education law, the Special Education Promotion Act (SEPA), was enacted in 1977. In the late 1970s, the Ministry of Education introduced a 5-year plan to strengthen special education by establishing new special education schools, securing qualified teachers, and providing financial support for private special education institutions. A pivotal moment came in 1988, when South Korea hosted both the Olympic Games and the Paralympics, leading to institutional reforms aimed at expanding disability rights and enhancing the national welfare system. A major milestone occurred with the 1994 revision of SEPA, which formally introduced the term “inclusive education” in legal regulations for the first time. This revision initiated discussions about classroom placements, outlining whether students with disabilities should be placed in special education settings or mainstream classrooms (Park, 2010). As South Korea continued to undergo significant legal and policy reforms in disability rights and education, the experiences of the participants in this study provide valuable insights into the evolving landscape of inclusive education.

According to the 2022 Special Education Annual Report, 73% of students with disabilities were placed in mainstream inclusive settings (Ministry of Education, 1994–2022), which accentuates the increased placements in inclusive settings. Although these statistics provide a surface-level overview of the quantifiable measures, they do not provide a holistic insight into the quality of the implementations. In reality, the implementation of inclusive education remains a significant challenge (J. Y. Lee & Lee, 2021; Y. H. Shin, 2018). Prior research in inclusive education in South Korea primarily addressed shortcomings of the policy framework in areas such as individualized education plans, implementing accommodations, and professional support (Jun & Hwang, 2019; Y. W. Kim, 2014; Yoo & Palley, 2014). Other studies documented parental perspectives (Y. Jeong & Luckasson, 2020) as well as the perspective of teachers (S. Kim et al., 2016; J. Y. Lee & Kim, 2019), demonstrating how the continuous cultural stigma about disabilities is promoting the desire to advocate for inclusive education. However, there is limited research examining the lived experiences through the perspectives of individuals with disabilities. There is a lack of opportunities for individuals with disabilities to participate in research regarding inclusion, leaving this group to be marginalized and their voices unheard.

Addressing this gap, this study seeks to explore the dynamic ebb and flow of inclusive schooling experiences through the stories of individuals with physical disabilities in South Korea, foregrounding their voices. In studies that seek to provide those individuals the opportunity to articulate their experiences, subjectivity is recognized and valued, meaning an emic perspective is gained, with emphasis placed on people and their subjective lived experiences (Moriña, 2020). The current study presents a descriptive portrait of how the experiences evolve throughout life, which resists simplistic categorization into gains and losses. This study does not intend to evaluate the effectiveness of inclusion in South Korea. The following research questions are addressed:

What do individuals with disabilities share in their retrospectively reflected schooling experiences in the Korean education context?

What do their stories reveal about the complexities of inclusion?

Method

Participants

Four individuals with physical disabilities in South Korea and the United States participated in this study. Purposive and snowballing techniques were used to recruit the participants, and the criteria used to select them were the following: (1) they have a physical impairment, (2) they have completed at least an undergraduate degree, and (3) they are currently employed. When these criteria were used to recruit participants, four women with disabilities agreed to participate in this study. Throughout their careers, they have many opportunities to share their lived experiences of disability. Their involvement in the area of disability advocacy included writing newspaper columns, doing public speaking at disability awareness events, and teaching college classes. Characteristics of the participants are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1.

Description of Participants.

Name	Age	Details	Educational history
Name	Age	Details	Elementary school	Middle school	High school
Helen	55	Cerebral palsy No use of wheelchair/cane Mild speech impairment: articulation A professor who teaches special education classes at a university.	Mainstream	Mainstream	Mainstream
Jinju	40	Laing distal myopathy (muscle disorder) Use of customized wheelchair to fit unique body position No speech impairment A disability advocate in a nonprofit organization A doctoral student in Social Welfare	Mainstream	Mainstream	Mainstream
HeeYeon	47	Cerebral palsy No use of wheelchair/cane Mild speech impairment: articulation An editor in a publishing company.	Special education school	Mainstream	Mainstream
Theresa	40	Cerebral palsy Use of wheelchair outside home Can walk inside home No speech impairment A regional director of disability-awareness enhancement center An athlete who competes in the National Sports Festival for People with Disabilities in a wheelchair.	Special education school	Special education school	Special education school

Since this study was focused on educational experiences, it was important to describe the participants’ school placements. As shown in Figure 1, the schooling experiences of the participants include both special education schools and inclusive education classrooms during critical periods when the special education laws were changing.

Figure 1.

Participants’ educational history.

In terms of selection criteria, we incorporated the positive deviance approach, which focuses on “behaviors or conditions that overconform to normative expectations that are also positively evaluated” (Heckert & Heckert, 2004, p. 78). By learning from individuals who rise above cultural and social expectations and assumptions about individuals with disabilities, valuable knowledge can be gained about aspects of their lives and support networks and how these factors can be used as powerful methods of change in the lives of other individuals with disabilities. All procedures for recruitment and data collection received IRB approval.

Procedures

A phenomenological approach is a form of qualitative research that emphasizes lived experiences and aspects of a particular construct (Bevan, 2014), which in this study is schooling experiences in South Korea. The model of phenomenological interviewing was used to explore the meaning of the participant’s experiences in the context of their lives. Context is an essential component in making meaning of the participants’ experiences to better understand from their point of view (Seidman, 2019). Their narratives were obtained via a series of three in-depth interviews with each participant. The series of three interviews provides an opportunity for the interviewer and participants to explore and reflect on the narratives (Seidman, 2019). The first author in this study, a woman with physical disabilities, conducted all the interviews. She was able to connect to the participants, reflecting their lives together. These interviews were conducted via Zoom at times convenient for each individual. During the first interview, which focused on life history, participants were asked to tell as much as possible about themselves, including their childhood, schooling experiences, and families up to the present. For example, the participants were asked to describe their educational history, distinct childhood memories, and happy and sad memories during elementary, middle, and high school. The purpose of the second interview was to capture in detail their professional experiences and their talk about their careers. In the third interview, participants were asked to reflect on how their lived experiences affected their present and future. All the interviews were conducted and recorded in Korean, then transcribed in Korean and translated into English by two members of the research team. Participants, who were given the option to use pseudonyms, were provided with the interview transcripts in Korean for a member check.

Data Analysis

Although one member conducted the interviews, the research was carried out by a team to ensure trustworthiness and the accuracy of data and interpretation (Merriam, 1998). Individually, all research team members read the interview transcripts numerous times and engaged in initial inductive and heuristic coding processes, identifying important narratives related to the research questions (their educational history and school experiences) through analytic memoing (Miles et al., 2020). After individual preliminary data analysis was completed, together, we reviewed similarities and differences by engaging in pattern coding across the data and reached a consensus over the themes identified within specific narratives. Such a process in analyzing data is called thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) which is a commonly used method to provide richness and detail for appropriately understanding the participants’ perceptions and illuminating their experiences (Brown & Stockman, 2013). By conducting a series of in-depth individual interviews with multiple participants and triangulating their stories, we enhance the validity of our qualitative research (Seidman, 2019).

Findings

The analysis of participants’ educational experiences revealed two main themes: (1) experiencing exclusion within inclusion, and (2) finding inclusion within exclusion. The first theme explores participants’ extra efforts to be accepted in inclusive education classrooms while still experiencing exclusion. The second theme examines how special education settings provide experiences that provide a sense of belonging and opportunities for inclusion in the broader society. Both themes recognize that inclusion and exclusion are contextual concepts that extend beyond mainstream and special education schools, respectively (Silver, 2010). Each theme addresses the multifaceted aspects of both schooling placements for students with disabilities.

Experiencing Exclusion Within Inclusion

Within academic-focused educational settings, Helen, Jinju, and HeeYeon had to establish their place in an inclusive education classroom alongside nondisabled peers by showcasing strong academic performance. At the beginning of the school year, they had to work hard to eradicate initial low expectations of their academic abilities. They had to demonstrate their capabilities to prove they belonged in those settings. HeeYeon said, “After the first standardized exam, the teachers’ perception of me changed drastically when I received good test scores. At first, they looked down on me.” Helen also shared the following anecdote:

After the midterm of my first year of middle school, one of the teachers called out individual students’ names and their grades on the exams, one after another. As the teacher announced each student’s name in front of the whole class, after calling out my name, there was a puzzled look on the teacher’s face, followed by the comment, “Huh, your score is good.” It was as if she assumed that my score would be low because of my disability.

It was not easy for the participants to deal with negative stereotypes in these inclusive classrooms as the only students with disabilities, where good test scores were the strict standard they had to meet for them to be entirely accepted as legitimate members of the inclusive classroom communities.

If college entrance and the completion of college education are the barometer for success, the participants were successful in the inclusive education classrooms by studying hard and getting good grades. Their stories illustrate the significance of academic achievement as the key to being accepted as a member of their inclusive education classrooms, which is a precondition for social inclusion (J. S. Kim & Bang, 2016). From these individuals’ reflections, academic programs that prepare students for the college entrance exam seem to significantly affect the quality and scope of schooling experiences for students with disabilities, as shown in HeeYeon’s comment.

When people find out you attend one of the well-known universities in Seoul, you can see the flicker of change in their eyes. That’s when I realized that if I wanted to live and make a living in Korea, I needed to be and do more [earn more degrees] than others. I enjoy studying and pursuing higher education degrees, but I also had other motives [to continue to graduate school]. Others might consider it being vain or even arrogant, but I was desperate to do and be more.

Although academic success was considered the top priority for the participants, their school days were filled with diverse activities and constant social interactions with peers and teachers in inclusive education classrooms. During her first 2 years of elementary school, Jinju’s homeroom teacher made an effort to include her during the PE period. She brought her to the gym and had her hold onto the bench so she could stand and observe the other students. From Jinju’s perspective, the teacher’s actions may have been considerate and well-intentioned, but they did not create a meaningful experience for her. Jinju was only an observer, feeling lost.

I never knew what was going on. For example, when they were playing kickball, the teacher explained the rules, the format of the game, and all that. But since they were too far away, I couldn’t hear any of the rules. From my viewpoint, they were just mindlessly kicking the ball, so I lost interest.

Jinju stopped going to the gym to observe other students and stayed in the classroom during PE. She did not mind staying in the classroom while the other students were playing on the school playground.

Classmates gave me their valuable items such as Walkmans, CD players, and MP3 players to keep safe. I could see that some of them felt guilty as they suggested I listen to the songs they had on their devices. So, during PE class, I stayed back in the classroom, listening to music, reading books, and such.

HeeYeon also shared, “Physical education (PE) and music classes were challenging for me. Especially because I have articulation issues, I could not sing, so I could not participate in singing activities with my classmates.”

Despite the limited participation and the lack of support for learning activities such as PE and music classes as the only students with disabilities, Helen, Jinju, and HeeYeon were able to build social connections with their non-disabled peers. HeeYeon shared the following story:

I met her [my friend] in my first year in middle school. When I was struggling to adjust to the new school, she would sit down next to me and eat lunch with me. She often carried my book bag and looked after me. I knew she was caring for me because the teacher assigned her to help me. I felt her actions were genuine.

As the only students with disabilities, they seemed to be perceived as individuals who needed help or looked after like younger siblings. This theme highlights the lack of reciprocal relationships among peers in inclusive education classrooms.

Finding Inclusion Within Exclusion

Theresa, one of the participants who only went to special education schools for students with physical disabilities, shared somewhat different schooling experiences. She voiced concerns about “the missing piece” when she talked about not feeling academically ready for college and having to study extra hard while preparing for the college entrance exam.

Although special schools used the same curriculum as regular schools, the process was different in certain aspects, such as the pace of the curriculum. Such discrepancies were evident when comparing scores from standardized tests and college entrance exams. Students who attended special schools tended to receive lower scores. I always wished for certain solutions that would narrow the gap in academic programs between these schools.

Despite a lack of rigorous academic experience, two participants, HeeYeon and Theresa, offered different perspectives on inclusion. Particularly, Theresa’s reflections on her entire education in segregated settings clearly illustrate the benefits of special education schools from the insiders’ perspectives. Due to the limited resources in her region, it was difficult to meet the needs and accessibility of her wheelchair, and her parents sent her to a boarding school for students with physical disabilities far away from home. Theresa attended special education schools from elementary to high school. Theresa shared that she was able to actively participate in all academic experiences, including physical education classes. Her special education schools always had designated times for physical education. She and her peers with physical disabilities had the opportunity to explore different types of adapted physical activities/sports, such as boccia.

In terms of social experiences, Theresa seemed to have many typical teenage experiences of hanging out with her peers with disabilities. In retrospect, the world of typical teenagers was no different from their world regarding friendships.

My happiest memory during high school is being rebellious with my friends. [One evening] we would tell the teachers that we were going home and got an overnight pass to make a trip to downtown Seoul [instead of staying in a dorm that we were staying while attending the special education high school]. Four friends and I took a subway to downtown Seoul and hung out all night at Marronnier Park. At that time, I was in a manual wheelchair, so two of my friends with mild physical disabilities who could walk pushed my wheelchair whenever we went out. We watched dancers perform and people playing basketball on the street. When it got too cold, we warmed up ourselves by eating ramen at the food court. Then, we took the first subway in the morning and returned back to the dorm.

The powerful impact of building a close-knit community with other students with disabilities is also shown in HeeYeon’s comment. HeeYeon attended a special education school for students with physical disabilities during her elementary school years.

I remember the community at my special education elementary school felt like a bubble and had a unique vibe and its own ambiance. While attending there, I only saw the good side of people. And I acted according to those standards. I didn’t think about or suspect any bad intentions from others. I think some of that still lives within me. I think my relationships from there influenced how I relate to others in different social contexts and helped me to enjoy being around people.

Her early experience in the special education school provided her with a strong foundation of how she developed social relationships with her peers and helped her become more capable when she was placed in inclusive classrooms during her middle and high school years. HeeYeon’s and Theresa’s positive experiences in the special education setting were driven not only by tailored educational opportunities but more so by meaningful relationships. Perhaps, paradoxically, their experiences of being accepted as who they were in special education settings provided a strong foundation for their social competence (Lee & Bursztyn, 2011).

Discussion

The stories of the four individuals with physical disabilities in this study provide realistic and nuanced understandings of schooling experiences, encompassing both inclusion and exclusion. They experienced exclusion in inclusive education settings and inclusion in special education schools. Even after many years, they vividly remember their school days with their peers and teachers. The analysis of their experiences highlights how exclusion and inclusion cannot be simply understood as opposite concepts. It is difficult to distinctly delineate the benefits of inclusive education classrooms and special education schools, as each setting provides unique experiences. Placement is only one component of the schooling experience and must be viewed through a broader lens, emphasizing the intricate balance between the meaningfulness of mainstream curriculum and the achievement of individualized goals beyond education (Baker & Zigmond, 1995). Regardless of placement, there is always something to gain and something to lose. The purpose of this study is not to judge whether special education schools or inclusive settings are better for students with disabilities but delves into the educational journey of four individuals with disabilities in South Korea.

Three participants, Helen, Jinju, and HeeYeon, who were educated in the inclusive education classrooms for middle and high school, shared that they could access the education they needed and participate as members academically. They thought inclusive settings are beneficial in terms of academic experiences. They mentioned how their parents decided to send them to these schools because they believed their children could keep up with their nondisabled peers academically. Even though their parents were not interviewed in this study, the participants’ recollections of their schooling experiences implied their parents’ choices about school placement. Their parents’ choices and beliefs about education were significantly impacted by Korean cultural values, known as gyoyoukyul, education fever with a strong emphasis on academic achievement and higher education (Grinker, 2007).

Since academic achievement holds a pivotal role in defining success in Korea, access to the general education curriculum emerges as one of the significant factors influencing the preference for inclusive classroom placements (K. Shin et al., 2019). Three of the participants who attended inclusive classrooms with nondisabled peers articulated the benefits of partaking in the rigorous academic curriculum that better prepared them for college entrance. As college education is one of the key indicators of success in Korean society, it is vital to note the intricate connection between the changes to special education-related laws and the participants’ lived experiences. Legal mandates granted access to inclusive education classroom placements and college entrance for students with disabilities. The timeline in Figure 1 provides a snapshot of how the special education laws might have significantly impacted the participants’ education. When HeeYeon, Theresa, and Jinju applied to college, there were legal mandates providing accommodations for students with disabilities in terms of college entrance exams. In 1994, the special admission system for universities was enacted, and it was first implemented in 1995, opening university gates to students with disabilities. Six universities implemented the special admission system in the first year, and 107 students with disabilities were admitted to the universities. By 2002, 61 universities had enacted the special admission system, and the number of students increased to 614 (B. H. Kim, 2005). Notably, HeeYeon was in the first cohort who benefited from this law when she entered the college in 1995. As this legal mandate was solidified, Theresa and Jinju entered college in 2002 without much difficulty (see Figure 1). If college education is considered the only determining factor in measuring the success of inclusive education in Korea, the participants in this study achieved the ultimate goal in terms of academics.

Previous studies (Jeon et al., 2022; Kim, 2022; Park & Kim, 2022; Son & Lim, 2021) have reported that accommodations and adaptations in the academic domain, along with behavioral and social support, are provided to students with disabilities in inclusive education settings in Korea. However, an analysis of the participants’ retrospective reflection on schooling experiences raises questions about social experiences, specifically how much they had a sense of belonging and being valued as members of classroom communities in inclusive education classrooms. Our findings highlight that social exclusion and inclusion cannot be simply understood as opposite concepts. Instead, they have complex mechanisms that impact individuals’ relational and structural pathways (Silver, 2007). Consistent with previous studies, our study confirmed that access, participation, and support are the most essential components of inclusion (Brix et al., 2022; Odom et al., 2011). The insiders’ perspectives on schooling revealed that these components may be perceived and experienced differently by individuals with disabilities. Through the retrospective interviews, this study provides valuable perspectives into the impact of schooling experiences on these individuals, influencing various aspects of participants’ lives beyond high school. All the participants in this study made the educational achievement of receiving higher education degrees as well as career achievement in different fields. They engaged in professional activities in different capacities, advocating for people with disabilities. They have risen above cultural and social expectations and assumptions about individuals with disabilities, and their stories in this study offer critical insights into the complexities of inclusion.

The participants who attended inclusive classrooms acknowledged that being educated alongside nondisabled peers provided strong academic preparation, yet they often faced moments of exclusion. Despite their physical presence in these classrooms, they did not experience a true sense of belonging and could not fully exercise their sense of agency. Despite recalling moments of exclusion and marginalization, their fondest memories centered on their social relationships with their peers as they reflected upon their school days. This aligns with previous studies that highlight the significant role peer relationships play in shaping the schooling experiences of children with disabilities (Furrer et al., 2014; Molloy et al., 2011; Phan & Ngu, 2020; Valiente et al., 2008). Peer relationships play a pivotal role in providing social support, forming identity, and fostering social competence (Gazelle & Druhen, 2009; Kiuru et al., 2014; Molloy et al., 2011). One of the most significant factors for successful inclusion is the attitudes of peers and teachers towards students with disabilities (Lindsay, 2016). Social inclusion is not simply about the physical presence in the classroom but is achieved through providing opportunities for meaningful interactions (Amado et al., 2013). Meaningful interactions and relationships can be developed through reciprocal relationships when all children’s ideas, regardless of disabilities, are recognized and their voices are heard (Brix et al., 2022). Despite their continuous efforts to integrate, they were often perceived as individuals whom their nondisabled peers needed to “help” or “look after” rather than as equal members of the classroom community. Although they gained an opportunity to be part of the non-disabled world through their placement in inclusive classrooms, it did not always ensure full acceptance as peers.

In contrast, HeeYeon and Theresa’s experiences in special education settings revealed a strong sense of belonging and unconditional acceptance among their peers with disabilities (Lee & Bursztyn, 2011). A common critique of special education schools is that they limit students’ opportunities to integrate into mainstream society due to reduced interaction with nondisabled peers. However, Theresa’s story challenges this assumption, illustrating how her experience in a special education environment equipped her with the confidence and independence to actively navigate the world rather than relying on assistance from others. Ironically, the social dynamics within special education settings often more closely resembled those of typical peer relationships than the experiences of participants placed in inclusive classrooms. This underscores the reality that true inclusion is not solely about placement but about fostering environments where all students—regardless of ability—are valued, engaged, and empowered.

While the participants shared positive experiences of building friendships with their nondisabled peers, their memories about teachers were somewhat ambivalent. Some teachers were attentive but often fell short in providing the appropriate support needed for full integration in mainstream settings. Their memories highlight the reality that many teachers still may lack the expertise and competency to effectively manage inclusive classrooms (Lim & Hong, 2023; M. Park & Kwon, 2020). To enhance the quality of education for students with disabilities across all settings, it is important to establish educational policies that provide better training and practicum for teachers (M. Lee & Shin, 2021). Professional development must be practical, case-based, and ongoing, offering teachers opportunities for additional training, feedback, and support (Ryu & Noh, 2016; Song & Lee, 2022). Beyond these structural improvements, a key implication of this study is the need for teachers to see themselves as active agents in shaping inclusive practice. They must go beyond basic compliance with special education policies and embrace their roles as advocates and facilitators of meaningful inclusion (Lee & Recchia, 2016; McDevitt, 2021; Symeonidou & Loizou, 2022). Inclusion is conceptualized not as a place or a set of strategies, but rather as a state of mind translated into action, a holistic way of thinking about and enacting being together (Lee & Recchia, 2016). A practical starting point is to view the classroom community as inclusive, embracing all the students, including those with disabilities, as active learners who have something to contribute and are capable of building reciprocal relationships. Teachers also must confront their biased beliefs and prejudicial ideas about disability and commit to seeking the best ways to create classrooms where students with and without disabilities learn and grow together (Danforth, 2017; Danforth & Naraian, 2015). They play a critical role in bringing this conceptualization of inclusive practice to life within their classrooms in authentic and meaningful ways through their active engagement in everyday classroom activities (Lee & Recchia, 2016). The retrospective reflections of the participants in this study reveal the long-lasting impacts of the welcoming community for students with disabilities, emphasizing the idea that inclusion is not only about access but also fostering a sense of belonging that extends far beyond classrooms.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Yoon Joo Lee

Hye Jun Park

Young Eun Jeon

Hye Min Suh

Ethical Considerations

IRB Fiie #2021-0622; University Integrated Institutional Review Board; and City University of New York. Verbal consent was obtained from all the participants in this study.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The authors report no conflict of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are not publicly available due to the sensitive and confidential nature of the qualitative interviews conducted. Participants were assured that their identities and responses would remain confidential and would not be shared outside the research team. De-identified excerpts from the transcripts relevant to the analysis may be available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request, subject to approval by the institutional ethics board and in accordance with participant consent.

References

Ainscow

Slee

Best

(2019). Editorial: The Salamanca statement: 25 years on. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(7–8), 671–676. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1622800

Amado

A. N.

Stancliffe

R. J.

McCarron

McCallion

(2013). Social inclusion and community participation of individuals with intellectual/ developmental disabilities. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 51, 360–375. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-51.5.360

Andrews

(2004). Memories of mother: Counter-narratives of early maternal influence. In Bamberg

Andrews

(Eds.), Considering counter-narratives (pp. 7–26). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sin.4

Annamma

S. A.

Ferri

B. A.

Connor

D. J.

(2018). Disability critical race theory: Exploring the intersectional lineage, emergence, and potential futures of DisCrit in education. Review of Research in Education, 42(1), 46–71. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18759041

Baker

J. M.

Zigmond

(1995). The Meaning and Practice of Inclusion for Students with Learning Disabilities: Themes and Implications from the Five Cases. The Journal of Special Education, 29(2), 163–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699502900207

Bamberg

(2004). Considering counter-narratives. In Bamberg

Andrews

(Eds.), Considering counter-narratives (pp. 351–371). John Benjamins.

Berman

R. A.

(2009). Trends in research on narrative development. In Berman

R. A.

(Ed.), Language acquisition (pp. 294–318). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230240780_13

Bevan

(2014). A method of phenomenological interviewing. Qualitative Health Research, 24, 136–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732313519710

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

10.

Bricker

(2000). Inclusion: How the science has changed. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20(1), 14–19.

11.

Brix

K. A.

Lee

O. A.

Stalla

S. G.

(2022). Understanding inclusion. Bioscience, 72(3), 267–275. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biab143

12.

Brown

Stockman

(2013). Examining the use of thematic analysis as a tool for informing design of new family communication technologies. In 27th International BCS Human Computer Interaction Conference (HCI 2013). BCS Learning & Development.

13.

Connor

D. J.

Berman

(2019). (Be)longing: A family’s desire for authentic inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(9), 923–936. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1602361

14.

Danforth

(2017). Becoming a great inclusive educator – Second edition. Peter Lang.

15.

Danforth

Naraian

(2015). This new field of inclusive education: Beginning a dialogue on conceptual foundations. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 53 (1), 70–85.

16.

Furrer

C. J.

Skinner

E. A.

Pitzer

J. R.

(2014). The influence of teacher and peer relationships on students’ classroom engagement and everyday motivational resilience. Teachers College Record, 116(13), 101–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811411601319

17.

Gazelle

Druhen

M. J.

(2009). Anxious solitude and peer exclusion predict social helplessness, upset affect, and vagal regulation in response to behavioral rejection by a friend. Developmental Psychology, 45(4), 1077–1096. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016165

18.

Graham

Slee

(2008). An illusory interiority: Interrogating the discourse/s of inclusion. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(2), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00331.x

19.

Grinker

R. R.

(2007). Unstrange minds: Remapping the world of autism. Basic Books.

20.

Heckert

D. M.

(2004). Using an integrated typology of deviance to expand Merton’s anomie theory. Criminal Justice Studies, 17(1), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/08884310420001679352

21.

Herman

(2007). Considering counter-narratives: Narrating, resisting, making sense. Language in Society, 36(2), 278–284. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404507270137

22.

Hernández-Torrano

Somerton

Helmer

(2020). Mapping research on inclusive education since Salamanca Statement: A bibliometric review of the literature over 25 years. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 26(9), 893–912. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2020.1747555

23.

Jeon

Kang

(2022). A study on special education and inclusive classroom teachers’ experiences with co-teaching in Jeongdaun school. The Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(1), 1–30.

24.

Jeong

Luckasson

(2020). Mothers’ cultural approach to inclusive education for children with intellectual disability in South Korea: Qualitative Case Study. Inclusion, 8(4), 275–292. https://doi.org/10.1352/2326-6988-8.4.275

25.

Johnson

Walmsley

(2003). Inclusive research with people with learning disabilities: Past, present and futures. Jessica Kingsley.

26.

Jun

Hwang

J.-H.

(2019). Inclusive education in South Korea: Policy, practice, and challenges. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 66(1), 54–70.

27.

Kim

B. H.

(2005). 특수교육진흥법의 제정과 개정과정: 그 역사적 함의와 쟁점 [The process of establishment and revision of the special education promotion act: Its historical implications and issues]. Journal of Special Education: Theory and Practice, 6(1), 449–472.

28.

Kim

(2022). Mainstream class teachers’ strategies and challenges for their inclusive practice: Participation, achievement and collaboration. The Journal of Elementary Education, 35(3), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.29096/JEE.35.3.01

29.

Kim

J. S.

Bang

(2016). Education fever: Korean parents’ aspirations for their children’s schooling and future career. Pedagogy, Culture & Society. 25, 1–18. 10.1080/14681366.2016.1252419.

30.

Kim

Turnbull

Kang

(2016). Inclusion of students with disabilities in South Korea: Teachers’ perspectives and classroom practices. Journal of International Special Needs Education, 19(2), 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990203400505

31.

Kim

Y. W.

(2014). Inclusive education in South Korea. International journal of inclusive education, 18(10), 979–990. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2012.693402

32.

Kiuru

Pakarinen

Vasalampi

Silinskas

Aunola

Poikkeus

A. M.

Metsäpelto

R. L.

Lerkkanen

M. K.

Nurmi

J. E.

(2014). Task-focused behavior mediates the associations between supportive interpersonal environments and students’ academic performance. Psychological Science, 25(4), 1018–1024. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613519111

33.

Ladson-Billings

Tate

W. F.

(1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers College Record, 97(1), 47–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146819509700104

34.

Lalvani

Polvere

(2013). Historical perspectives on studying families of children with disabilities: A case for critical research. Disability Studies Quarterly, 33(3). http://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v33i3.3209

35.

Lee

J. Y.

Kim

Y. H.

(2019). Teacher attitudes and practices toward inclusive education in South Korea. Asia Pacific Education Review, 20(3), 327–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-019-09595-8

36.

Lee

J. Y.

Lee

J. H.

(2021). Challenges and solutions for inclusive education in South Korea. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 68(4), 347–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2020.1845861

37.

Lee

Shin

(2021). Practicum experiences of preservice special education teachers in the inclusive education. The Journal of Special Children Education, 23(1), 31–50. https://doi.org/10.21075/kacsn.2021.23.1.31

38.

Lee

Y-. J.

Bursztyn

(2011). Understanding childhood disabilities through culturally diverse families’ perspectives. In Bursztyn

(Ed.) Childhood psychological disorders: Current controversies (pp. 15–35). Prager.

39.

Lee

Y-. J.

Recchia

S. L.

(2016) Zooming in and out: Exploring teacher competencies in inclusive early childhood classrooms. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 30(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2015.1105330

40.

Lim

Hong

(2023). Experiences and perceptions of inclusive physical education classes and co-teaching. Korean Journal of Physical, Multiple & Health Disabilities, 66(1), 29–62. https://doi.org/10.20971/kcpmd.2023.66.1.29

41.

Lindsay

(2016). Child and youth experiences and perspectives of cerebral palsy: A qualitative systematic review. Child: Care, Health and Development, 42(2), 153–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12309

42.

Lipkin

P. H.

Okamoto

Norwood

K. W.

Adams

R. C.

Brei

T. J.

Burke

R. T.

Davis

B. E.

Friedman

S. L.

Houtrow

A. M.

Hyman

S. L.

Kuo

D. Z.

Noritz

G. H.

Turchi

R. M.

Murphy

N. A.

Allison

Ancona

Attisha

Pinto

C. D.

Holmes

Kjolhede

Lerner

… Young

(2015). The individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for children with special educational needs. Pediatrics, 136(6), e1650–e1662. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-3409

43.

McDevitt

(2021). Inclusion in practice: Humanising pedagogy for immigrant children with and without disabilities. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 28(7), 1036–1051. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.1973123

44.

Merriam

S. B.

(1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Jossey-Bass Publishers.

45.

Messiou

(2017). Research in the field of inclusive education: Time for a rethink? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(2), 146–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2016.1223184

46.

Messiou

(2019). The missing voices: Students as a catalyst for promoting inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(7–8), 768–781. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1623326

47.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

Saldaña

(2020). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage.

48.

Miller

Liu

Ball

A. F.

(2020). Critical counter-narrative as transformative methodology for educational equity. Review of Research in Education, 44(1), 269–300. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20908501

49.

Ministry of Education. (1994–2022). Annual report on special education. Special Education Policy Department.

50.

Molloy

L. E.

Gest

S. D.

Rulison

K. L.

(2011). Peer influences on academic motivation: Exploring multiple methods of assessing youths’ most “influential” peer relationships. Journal of Early Adolescence, 31(1), 13–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431610384487

51.

Moriña

(2020). Using life history with students with disabilities: Researching with, rather than researching on. Educational Review, 72(6), 770–784. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2018.1550054

52.

Odom

S. L.

Buysse

Soukakou

(2011). Inclusion for young children with disabilities: A quarter century of research perspectives. Journal of Early Intervention, 33(4), 344–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815111430094

53.

OHCHR. (1975, December 9). Declaration on the rights of disabled persons. Retrieved August 20, 2022, from https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/declaration-rights-disabled-persons

54.

Park

H.-J.

(2010). Rethinking the meaning of inclusive education: Focusing on inclusive education for all and the principles of universal design for learning. Journal of Inclusive Education, 5(2), 103–128. https://doi.org/10.26592/ksie.2010.5.2.103

55.

Park

Kim

(2022). The effects of positive behavioral support on challenging behavior and social interaction of children with developmental delays in inclusive setting. The Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 26(3), 41–60. https://doi.org/10.34262/kadd.2022.26.3.60

56.

Park

Kwon

(2020). Elementary school teachers’ perception and experience of current inclusive education for students with hearing impairment. The Journal of Special Education: Theory and Practice, 21(4), 125–154. https://doi.org/10.19049/JSPED.2020.21.4.05

57.

Phan

H. P.

Ngu

B. H.

(2020). Schooling experience and academic performance of Taiwanese students: the importance of psychosocial effects, positive emotions, levels of best practice, and personal well-being. Social Psychology of Education, 23(4), 1073–1101.

58.

Ryu

Noh

(2016). Perception and support needs of public kindergarten teachers on inclusive educational trainings. The Journal of Special Children Education, 18(2), 229–250. https://doi.org/10.21075/kacsn.2016.18.2.229

59.

Seidman

(2019). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (5th ed.). Teachers College Press.

60.

Sherry

(2016). A sociology of impairment. Disability & Society, 31(6), 729–744. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2016.1203290

61.

Shin

Jahng

K. E.

Kim

(2019). Stories of South Korean mothers’ education fever for their children’s education. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 39(3), 338–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2019.1607720

62.

Shin

Y. H.

(2018). An analysis of inclusive education in South Korea: From policy to practice. Journal of Asia Pacific Studies, 9(2), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.18485/japs.2018.9.2.1

63.

Silver

(2007). The process of social exclusion: The dynamics of an evolving concept (Chronic Poverty Research Centre Working Paper No. 95). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1629282

64.

Silver

(2010). Understanding social inclusion and its meaning for Australia. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 45(2), 183–211. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1839-4655.2010.tb00174.x

65.

Smith-Chandler

Swart

(2014). In their own voices: Methodological considerations in narrative disability research. Qualitative Health Research, 24(3), 420–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323145238

66.

Solórzano

D. G.

Yosso

T. J.

(2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an analytical framework for education research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780040200800103

67.

Son

Lim

(2021). Inclusive educational support and teacher roles recognized by parents of students with disabilities placed in general classrooms. Journal of Special Education, 37(1), 83–106. https://doi.org/10.31863/JSE

68.

Song

Lee

(2022). Experiences and perceptions of general and special education teachers regarding participation in co-teaching support program. The Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(2), 81–109. https://doi.org/10.26592/ksie

69.

Symeonidou

Loizou

(2022). Bridging early childhood education and inclusive practices in classrooms that serve children with disabilities: a narrative portrait. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 31(1), 92–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2022.214081

70.

Szumski

Smogorzewska

Karwowski

(2017). Academic achievement of students without special educational needs in inclusive classrooms: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 21, 33–54, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.02.004

71.

UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education, Salamanca, Spain. UNESCO.

72.

Valente

J. M.

Danforth

(2016, November). Disability studies in education: Storying our way to inclusion (Occasional Paper Series, 2016, No. 36). https://educate.bankstreet.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1158&context=occasional-paper-series

73.

Valiente

Lemery-Chalfant

Swanson

Reiser

(2008). Prediction of children's academic competence from their effortful control, relationships, and classroom participation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.67

74.

World Health Organization (WHO). (2013, March 11). Disability. Retrieved from https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA66/A66_12-en.pdf

75.

Yoo

J. P.

Palley

(2014). The diffusion of disability rights policy: A focus on special education in South Korea. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 61(4), 362–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2014.955790

“Both Sides Now”: Reflecting on Schooling Experiences of Individuals with Disabilities in South Korea

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review

Method

Participants

Procedures

Data Analysis

Findings

Experiencing Exclusion Within Inclusion

Finding Inclusion Within Exclusion

Discussion

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Ethical Considerations

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Data Availability Statement

References