Inclusion: Multiple perspectives

Abstract

The history of special education and the treatment of persons with disabilities has been involved at least as much with social movements as with education (Repp, 1983). Recently, we have seen movements based on themes such as normalization, mainstreaming, inclusion, the Regular Education Initiative, the Least Restrictive Environment, and so forth. Currently, the education community is concerned with inclusion, a movement with multiple definitions (Coutinho, Repp, & Denny, in press). There are broiling undercurrents within this movement. For example, (a) the National Education Association opposes inclusion, (b) some special educators question its rationality (e.g., Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994; Kauffman, 1992, 1993), while (c) other special educators contend either that special education has failed and these students should therefore be returned to the regular education classrooms, or that education in an integrated environment is a social right protected by the Constitution. The purpose of this section of the Journal of Behavioral Education is to present the topic of inclusion from multiple perspectives. The paper by Little and Witek (1996) is from a behavioral perspective, and it points out that the findings on the efficacy of inclusion are equivocal. They suggest that we look at inclusion from the perspectives of social validity and of functional outcome analysis. The latter focuses on teacher behaviors as the critical element for success. The paper by Moetler and Ishii-Jordan (1996) presents a different perspective through their model for teacher development and inclusion. They place an emphasis on what the student brings to the environment rather than on teacher behaviors that affect student behaviors. The differences, however, are more than semantic. Their approach