INCLUSION: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the literature on inclusion, a term that can be simply defined as the delivery of instruction to disabled/handicapped students in the regular school (Stainback, Stainback, East & Sapon-Shevin, 1994). The overview includes discussion of research and theory related to: the least restrictive environment (LRE) mandate, methods of determining the LRE for each child; strategies and techniques used by special education teachers, resource specialists and other relevant professionals for meeting the educational needs of "included" students (commonly referred to as mainstreamed students); the controversy involving simple versus full inclusion; California law as it relates to inclusion; and the effects of inclusion on special education students' self-concept and self-esteem.

The passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (Public Law 94-142) in 1975 was the culmination of years of litigation regarding discrimination against handicapped children in this nation's schools. A key principle of this law was the mandate that handicapped children be educated in "the least restrictive environment." According to Turnbull and Turnbull (1990), the LRE, essentially, mandates the need for a continuum of services for disabled/handicapped children in public schools.

Even before the LRE became national policy, Deno (1970) envisioned this con

. . .
her suggestion, and music) that address many student needs and have been found to provide a positive influence on all areas of student progress. These techniques, according to the authors, are said to work especially well with learning disabled students. Simple Versus Full Inclusion According to Borthwick-Duffy, Palmer and Lane (1996), simple inclusion is wedded to the notion of a continuum of placement options depending on the children's degree of need for physical/medical and other services associated with his/her disability. Full inclusion, on the other hand, holds that almost all disabled students, regardless of the continuum of services they require, should be placed in regular schools. Another way of saying this is that full inclusion involves more than the mainstreaming of students with disabilities in a specific social or academic area, but involves the full-time placement of students with mild, moderate, or severe disabilities in neighborhood schools. There are several pros and cons associated with full versus simple inclusion. In terms of those advocating full inclusion, they point out that the key difference between disabled children is not the setting but the degree of services required; and state that if th
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Elbaum Schumm, Depending IEPs, Turnbull Turbiville, Palmer Lane, IEP Committee, Self-Concept Self-Esteem, Department Education, Learning Print, East Sapon-Shevin, Pankake Fournet, special education, disabled students, restrictive environment, learning disabled, learning disabled students, effects inclusion, strategies techniques, disabled children, accelerated learning, resource specialists, handicapped children, california department education, resource specialists relevant, journal intervention 193, specialists relevant professionals,
Approximate Word count = 2507
Approximate Pages = 10 (250 words per page)

More Essays on INCLUSION: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE