The structure of arguments used to support or oppose inclusion policies for students with disabilities

Abstract

Several kinds of arguments have been proposed to support or oppose the value of the inclusion model in the education of students with disabilities. In this paper I argue that these arguments can be placed into four basic categories. The first is the consequentialist argument which requires an empirical approach and focuses on various attempts to measure the positive and negative outcomes of inclusion policies. The second is the justice argument which focuses on the importance of equality and fairness in the delivery of services to persons with and without disabilities. The third is the rights argument which is based on the view that persons with disabilities have rights to prescribed levels of quality of service provision. The fourth is the needs argument which focuses on the special needs of individuals with disabilities. Parents of students with disabilities often espouse the values of a high quality education and freedom of choice in regard to inclusion programs. These goals are often in conflict with the policies supported by service providers. Service providers typically aim to endorse programs that contribute consistent levels of service delivery to students within particular categories of disability delivery at minimum cost.