Archivo

Summary of evidence on inclusive education

Alana. ABT Associates.
Dr. Thomas Hehir; Dr. Todd Grindal; Brian Freeman; Renée Lamoreau; Yolanda Borquaye, and Samantha Burke (August 2016).

Introduction

Increasingly, around the world, students with disabilities are being educated alongside their non-disabled peers, through a practice known as “inclusion.” Inclusion is prominently featured in various international declarations, national laws, and educational policies. These policies, along with the efforts of disability rights advocates, have led to a substantial increase in the number of students with disabilities receiving instruction alongside their non-disabled peers.

This study aims to identify research showing the benefits of inclusive education not only for students with disabilities, but especially for those students without disabilities, as the evidence of these benefits for students with disabilities is already widely disseminated. The results of a survey conducted through a systematic review of 280 studies from 25 countries are presented. Of these, 89 studies provide relevant scientific evidence and were used as the basis for the analysis in this document. 

There is clear and consistent evidence that inclusive educational settings can offer substantial short- and long-term benefits for students with and without disabilities. A large compilation of studies indicates that students who are included develop better reading and math skills, have higher attendance rates, are less likely to have behavioral problems, and are more likely to finish high school than students who have not been included. As adults, students with disabilities who have been included are more likely to enroll in higher education and to be employed or live independently. Among children with Down syndrome, there is evidence that the amount of time spent with typically developing peers is associated with a range of academic and social benefits, such as improved memory and stronger language and literacy skills.

The inclusion of students with disabilities can support improvements in teaching practice that benefit all students. The effective inclusion of a student with a disability requires that teachers and school administrators develop capacities to support the particular strengths and needs of each student, not solely those of students with disabilities. Research evidence suggests that, in most cases, being educated alongside a student who has a disability does not produce adverse effects for non-disabled children. On the contrary, some research indicates that non-disabled students who are educated in inclusive classrooms hold less prejudiced views and are more tolerant of people who are different from them.

For people without disabilities, the benefits of inclusive education extend to the workplace. In a study of Brazilian, Spanish, U.S., and Canadian companies and institutions, researchers from McKinsey & Company found that employing people with Down syndrome creates a positive impact on a company’s culture and work environment, fosters the development of conflict resolution skills, and increases employees’ personal motivation.

However, many students with disabilities still struggle to access effective inclusive programs. Outdated misconceptions about the capabilities of children with intellectual, physical, sensory, and learning disabilities cause some educators to continue segregating disabled and non-disabled students. For the purposes of this study, inclusive education is understood in opposition to other common educational settings for students with disabilities: exclusion, segregation, and integration.

In this report, we document the evidence on the effectiveness of inclusive education and provide insights into how educators and policymakers can improve the availability of inclusive options for children with disabilities and their families. While the review includes evidence from all students with disabilities, we focus particularly on evidence related to the inclusion of students with Down syndrome. We conclude with an analysis of common challenges to implementing inclusive programs and recommendations for policymakers, practitioners, and parents.

What is inclusion?

Educational settings for students with disabilities vary, from a complete denial of formal education services to equality in all aspects of the education system. For this report, we describe the educational experience of students with disabilities using the following four criteria:

  • The exclusionoccurs when students are directly or indirectly prevented from or denied access to education in any way.
  • The segregationoccurs when the education of students with disabilities is provided in separate environments designed or used to respond to particular deficiencies or various deficiencies, in isolation from students without disabilities.
  • The “integrationis a process of placing persons with disabilities in existing mainstream educational settings, in so far as students with disabilities can adapt to the standard requirements of these types of institutions.
  • The inclusioninvolves a process of systemic reform that incorporates changes and modifications in content, teaching methods, approaches, structures, and strategies in education to overcome obstacles. The vision is to offer all students of the corresponding age a participatory and equitable learning experience and an environment that best corresponds to their needs and preferences. Placing students with disabilities in ordinary classes without accompanying structural changes, such as, for example, organization, curriculum strategies, teaching and learning, does not constitute inclusion. Furthermore, integration does not automatically guarantee the transition from segregation to inclusion.

An international movement towards inclusion

Increasingly, around the world, students with disabilities are educated alongside their non-disabled peers (World Health Organization, 2011). The growth of inclusive educational practices stems from a greater recognition that students with disabilities thrive when offered, to the greatest extent possible, the same educational and social opportunities as non-disabled students. This section describes the development of international and national efforts to support the inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms.

In 1994, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Conference on Special Needs Education issued a consensus report on the education of students with disabilities. The resulting Salamanca Statement 1, signed by representatives from 92 countries and 25 organizations, states that “special educational needs must have access to ordinary schools.” The statement asserts that inclusive regular schools “represent the most effective means to combat discriminatory attitudes, to create welcoming communities, to build an inclusive society and to achieve education for all.” The Salamanca Statement was part of a global movement toward inclusive education and offered guidelines for action at the national, regional, and international levels. The Statement called for governments to promote, plan, fund, and monitor inclusive educational programs within their education systems (UNESCO, 2009).

In the years following the Salamanca Statement, the international community continued to promote the inclusion of persons with disabilities in society. Adopted in 2006, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) commits its 161 signatory states to ensure that “persons with disabilities can access inclusive, quality, free, primary and secondary education on an equal basis with others, in the community in which they live.” Article 24 of the Convention requires states to guarantee an inclusive education system at all levels for persons with disabilities, as well as lifelong learning opportunities. Article 24 also stipulates that students with disabilities must not be excluded from general education, that reasonable accommodations and individualized support must be provided for them, and that persons with disabilities must have equitable access to tertiary education, vocational training, and adult education on an equal basis with non-disabled students.

Many countries have developed national policies to support inclusion. In Thailand, legislation such as the 1995 National Special Education Plan and the 1999 National Education Act protect the rights of students with disabilities and guarantee access to 12 years of free basic education. As a result of this legislation and these national media campaigns, the majority of Thai students with disabilities now attend integrated schools (UNICEF, 2003). Nigeria adopted a formal special education policy in 1988 and has since created additional legislation requiring schools to provide inclusive education services to children with disabilities (Ajuwon, 2008; Tesemma, 2011). South Africa developed a long-term plan to promote inclusive education by transitioning students from segregated locations to an integrated system of neighborhood, full-service, and special schools (Department of Education, 2001).

In the United States, students with disabilities have the right to a “free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment,” protected by federal law since 1974. Subsequent updates to the laws governing the education of students with and without disabilities have demonstrated a preference for inclusive settings by requiring that children with disabilities be educated in the “least restrictive environment” that is appropriate for their individual needs. There is evidence that these policies spurred an increase in the extent to which children with disabilities attend class alongside their non-disabled peers. For example, since 1989, the percentage of U.S. students with intellectual disabilities who spend 40% or more of their school day in classrooms with non-disabled peers grew from 27% to 44%. In the Netherlands, the rate at which students with Down syndrome were included in traditional classrooms increased considerably in recent decades, from approximately 1% or 2% in 1986 to 37% in 2013 (de Graaf, van Hove, & Haveman, 2014).

Despite growing international consensus regarding inclusion, many students with disabilities worldwide continue to face challenges when attempting to enroll in mainstream schools. Recent research by UNICEF in 13 low- and middle-income countries indicates that children with disabilities represent a disproportionate percentage of out-of-school children. A 2009 survey on school enrollment in India noted that, despite near-universal enrollment of students without disabilities in primary school, over one-third of students with disabilities are not enrolled in schools of any kind. Among children in India with intellectual disabilities, including children with Down syndrome, it was estimated that nearly half of them were not enrolled in school (UNESCO Institute for Statistics & UNICEF, 2015). While precise data are scarce, available information indicates that inclusion rates vary widely by country, even within the same region (UNESCO Institute for Statistics & UNICEF, 2015). In Europe, for example, Cyprus, Lithuania, Malta, Norway, and Portugal educate over 80% of students with disabilities in inclusive settings, whereas France, Germany, and Belgium still educate almost all students with disabilities in segregated settings (European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, 2010; World Health Organization, 2011). Even in countries where the rights of students with disabilities to attend school are protected by law, many still face substantial barriers. In some CRPD signatory nations, students with disabilities are still advised to enroll in segregated schools or are denied admission to inclusive schools (Zero Project, 2016). This data also indicates that, in some countries, included students struggle with poorly trained teachers, as well as inaccessible school buildings and curricula.

In summary, several countries around the world have pledged to support the inclusion of persons with disabilities. There has been a substantial expansion in the extent to which students with disabilities attend school alongside their non-disabled peers, but this progress has been uneven. Many countries enacted policies to promote inclusion, while others have been slow to shift from a segregated education model. Even in countries that have high rates of students with disabilities in general education classrooms, truly inclusive education may not be the norm.

Brazil: progress on the path toward a more inclusive educational system

In 2003, inclusive education became part of the educational agenda in Brazil. Until then, the paradigm focused on segregation, with separate schools serving only persons with disabilities. The development of a more robust inclusive approach to education was formalized in 2008 through the National Policy for Special Education from an inclusive perspective. The policy encompasses pedagogical guidelines, teacher training, dissemination of assistive technologies, and investments in accessibility, making it possible and offering incentives for public schools to enroll students with disabilities. Consequently, out of the universe of students with disabilities, enrollment in regular schools increased from 23% in 2003 to 81% in 2015 (Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais Anísio Teixeira, 2014).

Citizens and activists worked to ensure that the movement towards an inclusive education policy continues in Brazil. Disability activists have demanded changes in curriculum structures, teaching and learning practices, and the administration of both private and public schools. In 2015, the Statute of Persons with Disabilities (Law 13.146) aligned Brazilian legislation with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, ratified in Brazil under Legislative Decree 186/2008 and Executive Decree 6949/2009.

Even with recent advances, the implementation of an effective inclusive education system in Brazil still presents many challenges. Brazil has a long history of educational exclusion of people stigmatized by their disability status, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status. Some students with disabilities still face barriers to enrolling in regular schools. Others find only integrationist paradigms in schools that do not operate quality inclusion programs. However, it is important to note that most of these barriers do not arise from a lack of political commitment to effective inclusion in education, but rather due to the challenges posed by poverty and inequality in a large country like Brazil. According to the United Nations, about 10% of the world’s population has some type of disability. This makes people with disabilities the largest minority population in the world. 1. About 80% of people with disabilities live in developing countries. Problems with transportation, adequate healthcare, understanding their rights, and other poverty-related issues can affect the number of children and young people with disabilities who access and remain in quality education programs. 2.

The extent of the difficulties in achieving full inclusion in Brazil can best be illustrated by the gap between the proportion of persons with disabilities in the general population and the proportion of students with disabilities enrolled in school. Approximately 10% of the population has some type of disability, but only three percent of students enrolled in the early grades of primary school in Brazil have a disability. The proportion decreases to two percent in the final grades of primary school and less than one percent in secondary school grades (Instituto Unibanco, 2016). These figures suggest that a substantial number of children with disabilities are not identified as persons with special educational needs and are not enrolled in formal education, and that many students with disabilities who are enrolled in primary education do not persist until the end of secondary school.

Benefits of inclusive education for non-disabled students

Inclusive education can offer a range of academic and social benefits for students with disabilities, such as higher achievement in language and math, improved high school graduation rates, and more positive relationships with non-disabled students. However, many parents and teachers have concerns that the inclusion of students with disabilities could be detrimental to their non-disabled classmates. They may worry that the modifications or adaptations required by students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms will hinder the learning of non-disabled students (Peltier, 1997). Despite these concerns, research has shown that, in most cases, the inclusion of students with disabilities in regular education classes does not harm non-disabled students and may even offer some academic and social benefits. Below, we document our analysis of the available evidence regarding the impact of inclusive education on non-disabled students.

Non-disabled students can benefit academically from inclusion

Several recent analyses concluded that, in most cases, the impact on non-disabled students of being educated in an inclusive classroom is positive or neutral. In 2007, researchers from the University of Manchester systematically analyzed a set of studies that focused on what happens to non-disabled students in inclusive classrooms. Based on research from 26 studies conducted in the United States, Australia, Canada, and Ireland, the authors found that the vast majority (81%) of the studies’ findings indicated that non-disabled students felt no effect (58% of studies) or felt a positive effect (23% of studies) on their academic development due to being educated alongside students with disabilities (Kalambouka, Farrell, Dyson & Kaplan, 2007).

A similar analysis of studies by Ruijs and Peetsma (2009) also concluded that inclusion was generally associated with positive or neutral effects on academic outcomes for non-disabled students. In three studies that reported positive outcomes, researchers noted that teachers employed teaching strategies and techniques that met the needs of diverse learners (Dessemontet & Bless, 2013). In all studies, differences between schools were much larger than differences between inclusive and non-inclusive classrooms within these same schools. This means that the overall quality of teaching in a school plays a more important role in shaping the achievement of non-disabled students than whether or not the student was educated alongside children with a disability. Salend and Duhaney (1999) found that typically developing students in inclusive classrooms received the same level of teacher attention as students in non-inclusive classrooms and had similar levels of academic achievement.

Large-scale longitudinal research in several countries (including the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Finland) also suggests that the inclusion of students with disabilities does not lead to negative outcomes for typically developing students. Analyzing the reading achievement of a nationally representative sample of 3rd-grade students in the United States from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–Kindergarten Class, Gandhi (2007), found no evidence that non-disabled students were harmed by being educated alongside a student with a disability. Similarly, a study by Farrell et al. (2007) of students in British primary and secondary schools found no substantially significant correlation between the proportion of students with disabilities in a school and the academic achievement of non-disabled students in the same school. Research by Friesen, Hickey, and Krauth (2010) analyzing 4th and 7th-grade students in British Columbia reached a similar conclusion. They noted that the number of students in a grade with learning and behavioral disabilities was not associated with the arithmetic and reading test scores of non-disabled students. Similar research conducted in the state of Texas in the United States by Hanushek, Kain, and Rivkin (2002) found that the proportion of students with disabilities in traditional classrooms was not associated with the academic achievement of non-disabled students. On the contrary, a study of around 1000 primary school students in the state of Indiana in the United States found that inclusion had a positive impact on the progress of non-disabled students in mathematics (Waldron and Cole, 2000). 59% of non-disabled students in inclusive schools had higher scores on a standardized math test compared to the previous year, while only 39% of non-disabled students in traditional schools achieved similar progress. Finally, an analysis of three cohorts of all school leavers in Finland showed that the proportion of students with learning disabilities in a school has no impact on the proportion of students who continue and graduate from upper secondary education (Kirjavainen, Pulkkinen, and Jahnukainen, 2016).

Research focused on the inclusion of students with Down syndrome or other intellectual disabilities yields similar conclusions. In a 2013 study, researchers statistically compared over 400 non-disabled students in elementary school across 50 classrooms in Switzerland. Twenty of the classrooms included one student with an intellectual disability, and 30 of the classrooms had no students with an intellectual disability. The researchers then followed these students for one year and found that having a classmate with an intellectual disability in their class had no impact on the development of math or literacy skills for non-disabled students (Dessemontet & Bless, 2013).

Critics of inclusion have raised concerns that the disruptive behavior of students with severe emotional disabilities may redirect teachers’ attention away from fostering the academic and social growth of all students. While most of the research reviewed for this study indicates that inclusion yields neutral or positive effects on the academic achievement of non-disabled students, there is some evidence that including multiple students diagnosed with severe emotional disabilities in a classroom may present particular challenges for teachers. Using data from a large-scale longitudinal study of children in the United States, researchers found evidence that having multiple classmates with a severe emotional disability may have a small negative impact on the reading and math skills (Fletcher, 2010), as well as the school behavior and approaches to learning skills (Gottfried, 2014) of non-disabled students. Researchers emphasize that these potential small negative effects on non-disabled students were driven by those classrooms in which two or more students with severe emotional or behavioral disabilities were present, and suggest that having one classmate with a disability should not worsen the outcomes for non-disabled children. Diagnosed severe emotional and behavioral disabilities are uncommon. In the United States, students with severe emotional and behavioral disabilities represent less than 6% of students with disabilities and approximately half of one percent of all students. 2. Therefore, a given classroom is unlikely to include two or more students with a severe emotional disability if these students were distributed equitably across all classrooms in their natural proportions.

The variation in the reported impact of inclusion on non-disabled students may be attributed to how inclusion was implemented. In many studies, such as those cited in the previous paragraph, inclusion is defined as the presence of one or more students with disabilities in classrooms that also include non-disabled students. In other studies, inclusion is defined by teachers’ use of practices that make the curriculum accessible to a wide range of students. An analysis by Saint-Laurent and colleagues (1998) supports this theory, noting that positive effects were more common in studies where support for students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms was well-managed through adaptable teaching, collaborative consultation, and cooperative teaching by special and general education teachers.

Further research highlighted the central role that teaching practice plays in ensuring that inclusive classrooms benefit all students (Sharma, Forlin and Loreman, 2008). Teachers with positive attitudes towards inclusion are more likely to adapt the way they work to benefit all their students (Sharma et al., 2008). Teachers with positive attitudes towards inclusion are also more likely to influence their colleagues in positive ways to support inclusion, fostering collaboration and sharing classroom management skills (Sharma et al., 2008). In an Australian study involving six primary and secondary school classrooms, researchers found that teachers’ attitudes were crucial for effective inclusive practice (Carlson, Hemmings, Wurf and Reupert, 2012). In the study, they suggest that teachers’ inclusive attitudes regarding supporting students with a range of learning needs created the necessary conditions in schools to foster inclusion in practice, which in turn resulted in more inclusive attitudes from other teachers, school educators, parents, and students.

Further research highlighted the central role that teaching practice plays in ensuring that inclusive classrooms benefit all students (Sharma et al., 2008). Research suggests a positive correlation between the amount of teacher education or training in disabilities and positive attitudes toward inclusion. Teacher training and appropriate interventions can also reduce externalizing behavior that negatively affects other students. Gottfried (2014) found that more experienced teachers and those with more training in educating students with disabilities were better able to mitigate any negative impact of students with disabilities on their peers’ behavioral outcomes. Coordinated school-wide approaches to the behavior of disabled and non-disabled students can also support the inclusion of students with behavioral issues.

While training can help provide teachers with specific teaching strategies, many teachers suggest that they do not have the time or resources to effectively include students with disabilities (Chiner & Cardona, 2013; Curcic, 2009; Oswald & Swart, 2011; Woolfson & Brady, 2009). Concerns about resources have been noted in teacher surveys in Hong Kong ((Stella et al., 2007)), South Africa (Oswald & Swart, 2011), Ghana (Alhassan, 2014), and Spain (Chiner & Cardona, 2013). Certainly, providing targeted support for students with disabilities in a general education classroom may require additional time from teachers. For some students with disabilities, inclusion in a general education classroom requires adaptive technologies or curriculum modifications. Successful inclusive schools often identify multiple sources of funding to provide these additional supports. For example, the principal of Clarisse Fecury School in Rio Branco, Acre, Brazil, identified and mobilized resources from the State Secretary of Health, the Special Education Management System, and various support centers specializing in specific disabilities (Hübner Mendes & de Macedo, 2011).

While finances matter, implementing inclusive education is not solely a matter of additional financial resources (Curcic, 2009). Effective inclusive education requires teachers and other education professionals to regularly engage in collaborative problem-solving. Through school-wide collaboration, school staff can share ideas and strategies to address the specific difficulties faced by individual students with and without disabilities (Carter & Hughes, 2006). Teachers and other school staff work together to devise classroom-based interventions that can increase a student’s likelihood of success (Bouillet, 2013). This collaboration may involve interactions between classroom teachers, speech-language pathologists, special educators, school psychologists, and the principal, who work together to meet the needs of each individual student by dividing time and sharing resources.

Research suggests that by developing this culture of collaborative problem-solving, the inclusion of students with disabilities can serve as a catalyst for whole-school improvement and benefit non-disabled students (Giangreco, Dennis, Cloninger, Edelman & Schattman, 1993; Hehir & Katzman, 2012). In effective inclusive schools, the traditional isolated classroom is replaced by a more flexible structure that facilitates collaboration among all school staff. This allows educators to develop coordinated methods focused on addressing the specific needs of individual students. The skills these educators develop to support students with disabilities help them better address the particular needs of all their students.

Boston: Effective Inclusive Schools Support Excellence for All Students

An in-depth study of inclusive schools in Boston, Massachusetts, demonstrates that schools can be both inclusive and high-performing. When schools make inclusion part of their core mission, teachers work together to elevate student achievement by continuously improving their teaching and supporting the individual learning needs of each student. In this study, researchers followed three public schools for two school years. They conducted interviews with teachers, students, and administrators, observed classes and school events, and reviewed three years of test data. These schools were chosen for the study because of their explicit commitment to helping all students with and without disabilities meet high academic standards.

The teachers in these effective inclusive schools describe the inclusion of children with disabilities in the same way they might describe the inclusion of students from diverse racial, ethnic, and linguistic backgrounds. One primary school teacher stated: “We, as a collective, value diversity across the board; not just cultural diversity or racial diversity, but diversity in how we learn and diversity in economic factors.” Consequently, inclusion is seen as part of a larger mission, and this mission informs all aspects of school culture. School staff approach the inclusion of students with disabilities as an opportunity to effectively meet the diverse needs of all students through individualized and innovative teaching practices. Teachers see the challenges associated with teaching students with disabilities as an opportunity to strengthen their teaching practice and improve the achievement of all students, regardless of their disabilities or abilities.

To do this, these schools function as collaborative problem-solving organizations. Instead of operating in isolation, teachers and school staff collaborate to personalize programs for individual students. This collective problem-solving fosters a culture of innovation and improvement, where teachers continually strive to meet the changing needs of all students. One teacher described her school as “A place where people are always thinking about another way to do things, rather than saying ‘But this is the curriculum. This is how we have to do it’… Teachers [aquí] are being more creative.” The teaching of reading and writing at the Boston Arts Academy (BAA), a public secondary school for visual and performing arts, is an example of this type of creative problem-solving. Students enrolled in BAA are chosen exclusively based on their artistic ability, therefore, these students often exhibit specialized learning needs due to disabilities such as dyslexia or deafness. Teachers and school leaders have responded to this challenge by implementing a comprehensive approach to reading and writing instruction, whereby all teachers are expected to be reading and writing teachers. Incoming students undergo a thorough diagnostic reading assessment and are provided with appropriate support for their learning needs, such as summer enrichment, tutoring, or text-to-speech software.

This approach to teaching and learning directly impacted student achievement. Students at the Boston Arts Academy have consistently performed well on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS), a statewide standardized test. For example, the average MCAS English Language Arts score for 10th graders at Boston Arts Academy was 92 in 2005, higher than the average for both the state (89) and the city (73). A similar pattern emerged in 4th-grade language arts and math at the other two schools chosen for the study: the Patrick O’Hearn1 and Samuel W. Mason elementary schools. At Samuel W. Mason Elementary School, the average MCAS language arts score in 2005 (92) was higher than the city (73) and the state (90). Samuel W. Mason School also surpassed the city (68) and state (84) averages in math, with an average MCAS score of 86 in 2005. At Patrick O’Hearn School, the average language arts score in 2005 (80) was higher than the city average (73), but lower than the state average (90). In math, the average MCAS score for Patrick O’Hearn School (78) was also higher than the Boston average (68), but lower than the state average (84). Several factors such as strong leadership and parent involvement also contribute to the academic success of these three schools, but their inclusive approach has undoubtedly strengthened teaching practices and raised expectations for student achievement. As these schools demonstrate, including students with disabilities does not have to come at the expense of academic rigor or high achievement. When implemented deliberately and intentionally, inclusion can support high levels of achievement for all students.

  • Patrick O’Hearn Elementary School is now named William W. Henderson Inclusion Elementary School.

Inclusion can support the social and emotional development of nondisabled students

Attending class with a student with a disability can positively impact the social attitudes and beliefs of nondisabled students. A literature review describes five benefits of inclusion for nondisabled students: less fear of human differences, accompanied by greater comfort and awareness (less fear of people who look or act differently); increased social cognition (greater tolerance for others, more effective communication with all peers); improvements in self-concept (higher self-esteem, perceived status, and sense of belonging); development of personal moral and ethical principles (less prejudice, greater receptivity to the needs of others); and warm and affectionate friendships (Staub & Peck, 1995). These attitude changes are predicted by the Contact Hypothesis, a term referring to the reduction of hostility, prejudice, and discrimination between groups (e.g., nondisabled versus disabled) through increased intergroup contact (Allport, 1979).3 Inclusive classrooms provide many of the conditions necessary for reducing discrimination according to the Contact Hypothesis, including 1) equal group members, 2) cooperation in pursuit of common goals, 3) encouragement of the development of close personal relationships, and 4) institutional support (Allport, 1979).

Bunch & Valeo (2004) conducted detailed interviews with dozens of non-disabled Canadian students and found that students in inclusive schools had more friendships with students with disabilities and were more likely to support inclusion, compared to students in non-inclusive schools. A few students from non-inclusive schools were friends with students with disabilities, while all elementary school students in inclusive schools were friends with students with disabilities. The researchers suggest that the difference is due to simple regular contact between students with and without disabilities in inclusive schools. A middle school student from an inclusive school said about a classmate with a disability: “Because she is with us, we consider her our friend and she considers us her friends.” Regarding support for inclusion, the researchers theorized that students are more likely to accept the situation with which they are familiar; if inclusion is the norm, they are likely to support it, and if separate placement is the norm, they are likely to accept it. They also found less peer abuse (mockery, insults, and social rejection) of students with disabilities in inclusive schools, possibly because students in inclusive schools were more likely to support their peers with disabilities.

In another study, researchers analyzed 80 non-disabled students in elementary school in Italy and found that those who had contact with students with Down syndrome held more positive and less prejudiced opinions about people with Down syndrome compared to students who had not had such contact (Consiglio, Guarnera & Magnano, 2015). A 2008 study of 6th to 8th graders in Chile found that non-disabled students attending inclusive schools demonstrated less prejudiced, condescending, or pitying behaviors toward students with Down syndrome compared to students attending non-inclusive schools (Sirlopú et al., 2008). The authors concluded that inclusive schools have the potential to change negative attitudes (e.g., pity and intergroup anxiety) and promote positive relationships between students with Down syndrome and their non-disabled peers. Peers attending inclusive schools also expressed more positive attitudes toward children with intellectual disabilities. In a study analyzing 256 children aged 9 to 10 years in Greece, students attending inclusive schools chose significantly fewer negative adjectives to describe children with intellectual disabilities compared to non-disabled students from non-inclusive settings (Georgiadi, Kalyva, Kourkoutas & Tsakiris, 2012).

Benefits of inclusive education for students with disabilities

Decades of research indicate that educating students with disabilities in inclusive settings can offer a range of academic and social benefits for these students. The first subsection of this section describes the academic benefits of inclusion for students with a variety of disabilities, and the second subsection describes the academic benefits of inclusion for students with Down syndrome and other intellectual disabilities in particular. The last subsection summarizes the social benefits of inclusion for students with disabilities.

Students with disabilities who are included academically outperform students who are segregated

There is strong evidence that students with disabilities benefit academically from inclusive education. The academic impact of inclusion has been studied in many ways with diverse student populations around the world. Multiple systematic reviews of academic research literature indicate that students with disabilities who were educated in general education classes outperformed their peers who were educated in segregated settings (Baker, Wang, and Walberg, 1995; Katz & Mirenda, 2002). This subsection begins with a description of studies conducted in the United States and concludes with evidence from international studies.

A 2012 study by Hehir and colleagues analyzed the performance of over 68,000 elementary and secondary school students with disabilities in the U.S. state of Massachusetts. Using state test data, the authors identified many factors that influence students’ academic achievement. Family income, school quality, and English language proficiency were related to a child’s academic performance. After statistically controlling for these factors, the authors found that, on average, students with disabilities who spent a greater proportion of their school day with their non-disabled peers performed significantly better on measures of language and math than students with similar disabilities who spent a smaller proportion of their school day with their non-disabled peers (Hehir, Grindal & Eidelman, 2012). Children with disabilities also benefit from being included in pre-kindergarten programs. A study of 757 three- and four-year-old students in the Midwestern United States found that the language skills of students with disabilities benefited substantially from the opportunity to attend preschool with non-disabled students (Justice, Logan, Lin & Kaderavek, 2014).

Two large-scale longitudinal studies of students with disabilities in the United States provided evidence that participation in inclusive education can have a positive impact on students’ academic outcomes. The Special Education Elementary Longitudinal Study (SEELS) followed 512 students with disabilities from elementary school to middle school and from middle school to high school from 2000 to 2006 (Wagner, Kutash, Duchnowski & Epstein, 2005). Data from the study indicate that students with disabilities who received more classes in general education settings had better reading comprehension and a higher performance level on math skills tests, compared to segregated students. Among students with an intellectual disability, included students also read 23 to 43 words per minute faster than other similar students who received fewer academic classes (Blackorby et al., 2007).

The National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS), a similar study focused on adolescent students with disabilities, followed 11,270 students aged 13 to 16 in the United States for ten years.4 This study concluded that students with disabilities who received more academic classes in general education settings experienced greater growth in academic skills scores than peers who spent more time in separate special education programs. Analyses of this data also indicated that students with disabilities in inclusive settings attended school an average of three more days per year, were eight percentage points less likely to receive a disciplinary referral, and were four percentage points more likely to belong to school groups (Marder, Wagner & Sumi, 2003; Newman, Davies & Marder, 2003).

Inclusive education can also support a student’s academic achievement: the number of years of education a person completed. A recent study by Harvard lecturer Laura Schifter used advanced statistical methods to analyze graduation patterns for students with disabilities in the U.S. state of Massachusetts and found that students with disabilities in fully inclusive placements were nearly five times more likely to graduate on time than students in segregated settings (Schifter, 2015). The benefits of inclusion can even extend beyond high school. One study of over 400 students with an intellectual disability (5) or multiple disabilities in the United States found that included students were nearly twice as likely to enroll in some form of higher education than their non-included peers (Baer, Daviso, Flexer, Queen, & Meindl, 2011). Another study using NLTS data indicated that after high school, included students were 11 percentage points more likely to be employed and earned approximately $2,100 more per year (in 1990 U.S. dollars) compared to otherwise similar students who spent 50% or less of their school time in general education (Wagner, Blackorby, Cameto & Newman, 1993).6 Included students with mild disabilities (learning disabilities, serious emotional disturbances, speech disorders, and mild intellectual disabilities) were 10 percentage points more likely to live independently than otherwise similar students who spent 50% or less of their school time in general education.

Evidence pointing to the academic benefits of inclusive education is not limited to the United States. Researchers in Norway followed nearly 500 secondary school students with disabilities for six years. Controlling for multiple other factors related to student achievement, they found that included students were more than 75% more likely to earn a vocational or academic credential than students who were educated in special classes (Myklebust, 2007). A study in the Netherlands compared the development of over 200 matched pairs of 7- and 8-year-old students with learning and behavior difficulties or a mild intellectual disability who were included in general and special education schools. The researchers subsequently followed these student pairs for four years and found that included students made substantially greater academic progress than their counterparts in special education programs (Peetsma, Vergeer, Roeleveld & Karsten, 2001).

Students with Down syndrome benefit academically from inclusion

Researchers have documented similar evidence that inclusion has academic benefits for students with intellectual disabilities generally and students with Down syndrome specifically. Among students with intellectual disabilities, such as students with Down syndrome, inclusive education has repeatedly been shown to support academic development, particularly in the areas of language and literacy (de Graaf & van Hove, 2015; Turner, Alborz, & Gayle, 2008). A 2000 analysis of the academic literature found that integrated students perform better than their comparable segregated counterparts and concluded that the available research supported the inclusion of children with intellectual disabilities in general education settings (Freeman & Alkin, 2000).

There is evidence that inclusive education is particularly beneficial for the development of language and literacy skills among students with Down syndrome. Researchers in Switzerland identified a group of 68 children who were similar in almost every way. They were the same age (between seven and eight years old), had been diagnosed with an intellectual disability, lived at home with their parents, and had similar scores on reading and math skills tests. The main difference between these students was that one group of students was included, while the other was educated in separate schools. The researchers subsequently followed these students for two years and found that the students experienced similar growth in their math skills in both groups, but the included students experienced substantially greater growth in the development of their reading and writing skills than their otherwise similar peers (Dessemontet, Bless, & Morin, 2012).

Other studies confirm that these inclusion-related language and literacy differences can be substantial. Researchers in the United Kingdom identified 46 adolescents with Down syndrome and analyzed their academic and social outcomes. These students had similar family characteristics and similar levels of cognitive abilities upon school entry, but were classified into inclusive or separate special education schools depending on where they lived. Students who had been included outperformed their segregated peers on measures of academic development. The researchers estimated that, compared to students in segregated programs, included students were approximately two and a half years ahead on measures of expressive language and more than three years ahead in reading, writing, and literacy skills (Buckley, Bird, Sacks & Archer, 2006).

Multiple studies conducted in the Netherlands have also found that inclusion is associated with improvements in academic skill development for children with Down syndrome (de Graaf & van Hove, 2015; de Graaf, van Hove, & Haveman, 2013). One study collected information on reading, writing, math, and language skills, parental education level, and home environment from a random sample of 160 children with Down syndrome in 2006. They later collected similar information four years later and found that the amount of time a student with Down syndrome spent in mainstream classes was a significant predictor of the child’s academic skill development, with particularly strong effects on younger children’s reading ability.

There is also evidence that inclusion is related to improvements in memory skills for students with Down syndrome. Memory can be particularly challenging for children with Down syndrome, and evidence of a link between inclusion and memory skills highlights how inclusive environments can offer greater opportunities for cognitive growth. In one UK study, researchers examined the language and memory development of 44 children with Down syndrome who attended mainstream and special schools. Children in the mainstream group scored significantly higher in language comprehension and short-term memory (grammar comprehension, auditory digit span, and visual digit span) compared to children who attended special schools. Children in mainstream schools were one and a half years ahead of their peers in special schools regarding vocabulary development and nine months ahead in grammar comprehension. The authors concluded that mainstream educational settings may provide children with Down syndrome with greater exposure to linguistic and academic instruction, which facilitates both language and memory growth (Laws, Byrne & Buckley, 2000).

Inclusion can support the social and emotional development of students with disabilities.

There is also evidence that participation in inclusive settings can have social and emotional benefits for students with disabilities. These social and emotional benefits can include the formation and maintenance of positive peer relationships, which have important implications for a child’s learning and psychological development. Research suggests that students with disabilities often struggle to develop peer relationships (Bossaert, Boer, Frostad, Pijl & Petry, 2015). One recent study analyzed over 1100 primary and secondary school students in Austria and found that, compared to non-disabled students, students with disabilities had fewer friendships or social interactions, lower levels of perceived peer acceptance, and a diminished sense of self in social participation (Schwab, 2015).

Inclusion can help support the development of social skills among students with disabilities (Schwab, 2015). A 2002 analysis of the academic literature indicates that students with developmental disabilities in inclusive classrooms showed higher levels of participatory behavior than students with developmental disabilities in special education classrooms (Katz & Mirenda, 2002). In a study of students with learning disabilities in Canada, researchers found that students who were educated primarily in a mainstream setting (in an inclusive classroom with or without additional support in the class) were more accepted by their peers, had better social relationships, were less lonely, and exhibited fewer behavioral problems than similar children educated in resource room or self-contained special education classroom settings (Wiener & Tardif, 2004).

Research on U.S. students using data from the NLTS and SEELS studies also indicates that time spent in inclusive settings is associated with better social skills for students with disabilities (Marder et al., 2003; Newman & Davies-Mercier, 2005; Sumi, Marder, & Wagner, 2005). NLTS data indicate that students who spent three-quarters of their day or more in general education classes were four percentage points more likely to belong to school or community groups than students who spent less time in general education classes. Included students were also eight percentage points less likely to receive school disciplinary actions than students who spent less time in general education classes (Marder et al., 2003). Researchers analyzing SEELS data found that students with disabilities in traditional placements show more independence and autonomy (Newman & Davies-Mercier, 2005; Sumi et al., 2005). For example, 34% of students with disabilities included in general education classes reported being likely to do things on their own “usually” or “very often,” compared to 22% of students educated in special education classes (Newman & Davies-Mercier, 2005).

Considerations for the implementation of inclusive education

The implementation of effective inclusive education may require teachers and principals to reconsider many of the old approaches to teaching. There are some common considerations that schools and teachers must address when working to include students with disabilities. The attitudes of teachers and their training, along with the administrative structure of the school, must be taken into account. Below we summarize the evidence on these considerations and how they can be addressed.

Teacher Attitudes and Expectations

Evidence from multiple countries suggests that teachers generally support the concept of inclusive education but question their own ability to teach in an inclusive classroom (Chiner & Cardona, 2013). For example, two surveys in Spain concluded that although teachers accepted inclusion in theory, few were willing to include students with disabilities in their classrooms (Cardona, 2000; Fernández, 1999). Many teachers attribute their doubts about including students with disabilities to a lack of adequate training. A large-scale study in the United States indicates that about one-fifth of general education teachers who teach students with disabilities report not having adequate support and one-third believe they were not adequately trained to support students with disabilities in their classrooms (Blackorby et al., 2004). Similarly, teachers in Scotland cited their lack of training and support as a barrier to the practice of inclusion, even though they had a favorable opinion of inclusion in theory and practice (Woolfson & Brady, 2009).

It therefore makes sense that providing teachers with training can influence their attitudes towards inclusion. Multiple studies have concluded that teachers who received training on inclusion are more likely to have positive attitudes towards the inclusion of students with disabilities (Chiner & Cardona, 2013; Sharma et al., 2008). For example, research conducted in South Africa regarding barriers to inclusion highlighted teachers’ concerns about the difficulties involved in increasing student diversity in the classroom. Teachers commented that they lacked adequate knowledge, facilities, skills, and training. These concerns shaped teachers’ perceptions of inclusion. After receiving training, teachers had a more positive view of including students with disabilities. Pre- and post-test scores indicated that teachers who participated in the study increased their teaching skills and knowledge of inclusive education (Oswald & Swart, 2011). Similarly, a study of teachers in Uganda found that those who had received some form of training on inclusive education had more positive and willing attitudes towards inclusion than those who had no training on inclusion (Ojok & Wormnæs, 2013).

There is some evidence that students with disabilities who are educated alongside their non-disabled peers are subject to higher teacher expectations compared to students educated in separate settings. In a landmark study conducted in the United States, researchers analyzed how the quality of individualized education plans (IEPs) for students with disabilities changed when they left special education classrooms and entered inclusive classrooms. An IEP is a written document used in the United States that summarizes a student’s unique learning needs, the services they require, and how their progress in the classroom will be measured. Researchers analyzed the contents of IEPs associated with general education versus special education classes for students who had transitioned from special education to general education. The results indicated a significant increase in the quality and expectations of the goals of the IEPs that were written for students with disabilities once placed in inclusive settings (Hunt & Farron-Davis, 1992).

Effective inclusion of students with Down syndrome

Children with Down syndrome exhibit common strengths that facilitate their inclusion in mainstream classrooms. Research indicates that children with Down syndrome are good visual and social learners, particularly through observation and imitation (Hughes, 2006). They respond well to praise and rewards, rather than punishment, and do not present any particular behavioral problems associated with Down syndrome (Alton, 1998; Wolpert, 2001). When teachers are asked to describe a single personality characteristic that is most typical of children with Down syndrome, the most common responses include “affectionate,” “happy,” and “friendly” (Gilmore, Campbell & Cuskelly, 2003). Any behavioral problems observed in children with Down syndrome are a reflection of problems seen in children without Down syndrome (Alton, 1998).

However, children with Down syndrome present some common learning difficulties. These include difficulties with short-term auditory memory (i.e., learning through listening), as well as with speech and language. Children with Down syndrome sometimes have difficulty learning new words, learning grammar and syntax, and understanding verbal instructions or complex stories (Alton, 1998). Consequently, teachers in inclusive classrooms suggest that the most effective learning materials for children with Down syndrome include hands-on materials and computer-assisted technology, rather than worksheets or textbooks (Wolpert, 2001). Teachers may also choose to provide visual instructions or schedules and reinforce all curricula visually (e.g., by presenting a printed word alongside a picture to increase vocabulary) (Alton, 1998).

While inclusive settings offer students with Down syndrome the opportunity to develop friendships with non-disabled peers, some research suggests that students with intellectual disabilities may sometimes struggle to form strong social bonds in an inclusive setting (Buckley et al., 2006; Freeman & Alkin, 2000; Szumski & Karwowski, 2014). Differences in emotional maturity and intellectual capacity can interfere with the formation of reciprocal friendships between children with Down syndrome and their non-disabled peers (Cuckle & Wilson, 2002; Fox, Farrell & Davis, 2004). Genuine friendships between children with Down syndrome and their non-disabled peers often develop through shared interests and class-based activities (Fox et al., 2004). Children with Down syndrome may have interests more similar to those of younger children, and parents often hesitate to provide greater levels of independence to adolescents with Down syndrome (Cuckle & Wilson, 2002). Consequently, friendships between children with Down syndrome and their non-disabled peers are often “compartmentalized,” meaning they are restricted to one setting (i.e., school) and do not extend to other settings (i.e., home and community) (Cuckle & Wilson, 2002).

Schools can facilitate interactions between students with and without Down syndrome through various methods. In a study by a group of Scandinavian researchers, teachers took an active role in promoting interaction between non-disabled children and children with Down syndrome. Small groups, in which peers were expected to help each other and the child with Down syndrome, operated as a primary means of facilitating peer interaction (Dolva, Gustavsson, Borell & Hemmingsson, 2011). Teachers educated peers about the nature of disabilities such as Down syndrome and instructed them on how to behave in a supportive manner in these group settings. Teaching staff also assisted students with Down syndrome in interpreting social situations and initiating interactions with non-disabled students (Dolva et al., 2011). Teachers may also choose to create formalized peer buddy or friendship groups with non-disabled peers. Schools can partner with non-profit organizations, such as Best Buddies, which foster one-on-one friendships between people with and without intellectual and developmental disabilities in more than 50 countries. Evidence on the effectiveness of such programs is limited, but preliminary research indicates that structured social programs may benefit children with Down syndrome and other intellectual disabilities (Barrett & Randall, 2004; Carter, Hughes, Guth & Copeland, 2005; D’Haem, 2008).

The fact that forming strong relationships can be difficult in a general education classroom should not necessarily be interpreted as meaning that these settings are not socially appropriate for students with disabilities. On the contrary, it suggests that teachers and schools should pay attention to the psychological development of students with disabilities in general education settings and that general education teachers need more training and resources to create effective and inclusive learning environments that foster both the academic and social growth of students with disabilities.

A coordinated national approach to fostering inclusion

A national effort to promote a more inclusive system of education requires coordinated efforts that work “top-down” and “bottom-up.” That is, policies at the highest levels must affirm the right of children with disabilities to be included in education alongside their non-disabled peers. While policies are crucial, long-held misconceptions regarding the capabilities of all students to thrive in an inclusive classroom often represent the greatest barriers to progress. Efforts to foster inclusion must help to counter these long-held misconceptions and support and educate teachers, school administrators, and parents, so that children with disabilities have effective and welcoming schools and classrooms that can meet their needs. Parents must also be included as important partners in their children’s education in order to help ensure the best outcomes. In this regard, we offer the following recommendations.

Establish an expectation for inclusion in public policy

Although inclusion is increasingly supported by international organizations such as the UN and UNICEF and is endorsed by the 161 states that signed the CRPD, it is important for each country’s leadership to play a strong affirmative role in promoting inclusive education. Frequently, the practice of inclusion faces resistance due to cultural and political factors. Inclusion often does not align with cultural attitudes that have stigmatized disability and led to segregation or practices based on compassion. Political pressure may resist inclusive practices, as they can threaten the status quo of segregation. Therefore, changing these attitudes and practices requires, first and foremost, leadership from the top of society; prime ministers, legislatures, ministers of education, and school superintendents. In the United States, a significant advance in this area occurred when President John F. Kennedy spoke about having a sister with an intellectual disability. President George H.W. Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act, and President Clinton often repeated the phrase “inclusion, not exclusion” when promoting inclusive practice in all government programs. This type of top-down leadership provides clear guidance that change is necessary and is supported at the highest level. 

National leaders should make clear and highly public pronouncements that inclusive education is the country’s expectation. National leaders can also work to create and gain legislative support, which can subsequently provide the necessary policies and programs to make inclusive practice successful. This type of top-down leadership should also extend to the local level. Leaders of regional and local schools should also be required to promote inclusive practices.

Establish a public campaign to promote inclusive education

Given the cultural shift that inclusive education requires in most societies, it is important to change public opinion about the importance of inclusive education, especially for students with intellectual disabilities. For example, providing images of students with Down syndrome successfully included in general education classes and schools can help establish inclusive education as a cultural norm among teachers and other educators. The participation of highly visible inclusion advocates, such as business leaders or members of the media, can help both promote acceptance among educators and create demand for inclusive programs among parents of students with and without disabilities.

Develop data collection systems

Data on the extent to which students with disabilities are included with their non-disabled peers can often be difficult to obtain. Countries seeking to support the inclusion of students with disabilities must invest in collecting accurate data on the extent to which children with disabilities have access to the same schools as their non-disabled peers. Simply measuring school enrollment is not enough; countries must also develop a system for measuring the amount of time students with disabilities spend in inclusive classrooms. The current effort to establish indicators for the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals represents an important opportunity to shape the types of data that will be collected globally. It is crucial that indicators focused on inclusion are represented in this effort.

The vast majority of students with disabilities can access the general education curriculum and perform at the same level as their non-disabled peers if provided with appropriate accommodations. Therefore, states must also measure the extent to which students learn the necessary skills and content in these courses and include students with disabilities in national measures of educational progress. The results of these tests should not have significant consequences for the students themselves. Instead, they should be used to identify schools and communities that need support with better educating and including their students with disabilities.

Provide educators with a strong pre-service and in-service preparation program regarding inclusive education

The research we summarize points to the importance of preparing teachers and school leaders for inclusive education. Broadly speaking, this work includes two main components. First, attitudes matter a great deal. Much like broader cultural attitudes toward people with disabilities, attitudes among educators are often negative, and these attitudes can carry over into the classroom and school. Teachers and school leaders need opportunities to confront these attitudes and see how successful inclusion can work.

The second component that needs to be addressed is learning classroom techniques that can help students with disabilities to thrive. The concept of universal design is a particularly promising framework for supporting teacher development. This concept was initially used in architecture, as features such as ramps, accessible restrooms, and automatic doors were installed in buildings to accommodate the needs of people with physical disabilities (Rose & Meyer, 2006). Similarly, Universal Design for Learning (UDL) requires schools to design curricula to accommodate the diverse strengths and weaknesses of all students, both with and without disabilities. The UDL approach to inclusive education includes the following principles: 1) provide multiple means of representation, 2) provide multiple means of action and expression, and 3) provide multiple means of engagement (National Center on Universal Design for Learning, 2014). This framework assumes that students are not defined by their disability, as labels that categorize children as “disabled” or “not disabled” do not capture the full range of abilities across all groups (Hehir & Katzman, 2012). Regardless of their disability status, all students benefit from a set of hands-on, auditory, and visual learning opportunities in the classroom.

For children with Down syndrome and other intellectual disabilities, UDL is a particularly effective approach to teaching and learning. As noted previously, children with Down syndrome have particular strengths in visual learning and processing, and teachers can leverage these strengths in the classroom through multimedia instruction (Hughes, 2006; Davis, 2008). In one study examining the effects of UDL literacy intervention that combined e-books and interactive literacy games, researchers found positive academic outcomes related to program participation. Students with intellectual disabilities who received the intervention had gains of 15 points on the WJ-III Passage Comprehension (a test of reading comprehension skills) compared to less than 8 points for a combined control group (Coyne, Pisha, Dalton, Zeph & Smith, 2012). Researchers examining math achievement in a sample of children with Down syndrome in Spain found similar results. Students with Down syndrome who received instruction using multimedia math software had higher math scores compared to children who received traditional pencil-and-paper instruction (OrtegaTudela & Gómez-Ariza, 2006). The authors concluded that the intervention allowed students to access information in multiple ways, particularly through visual representation, which helped students process and retain math content.

Creating inclusive schools with universal design

Inclusion represents a substantial departure from traditional educational practice. Pre-service and in-service training can help teachers develop the pedagogical skills to include a wide variety of students, but it is often important for educators to observe successful inclusive schools. While we believe that virtually all schools can develop inclusive practices, we recommend identifying some schools that have implemented inclusion particularly well so that they can serve as demonstrations or laboratories for the training of inclusive teachers and school administrators. Henderson School in Boston, Massachusetts, provided such an example to educators in the United States and around the world.

These model inclusive schools can also help develop new and more effective techniques for including students with disabilities in general education classrooms. As we discussed earlier, children with Down syndrome have particular learning needs. Developing expertise on how best to support students with Down syndrome, as well as all students with disabilities, may require extensive practice and observation. Model inclusive schools provide an environment in which these practices can be refined and improved.

Promoting inclusive opportunities in both higher education and the labor market

In the last decade, higher education institutions have also had extended access for students with intellectual disabilities and have helped create inclusive university experiences. The College of New Jersey (TCNJ) in the United States, after receiving a federal grant of $1.28 million USD, began offering a four-year Career and Community certificate program for students with disabilities, such as Down syndrome, autism, and other intellectual disabilities. The program involves program-specific curriculum studies, internships, and elective courses at TCNJ with the rest of the university’s student body. The program also has partnerships with high school special education programs in order to prepare students with intellectual disabilities for university experiences while they are still in high school. Another project, Think College: College Options for People with Intellectual Disabilities, is creating opportunities for students with disabilities interested in higher education opportunities in the state of Massachusetts in the United States. The success and lessons learned from TCNJ’s Career and Community program and other similar programs can open the doors and classrooms of more higher education institutions, as well as improve employment opportunities for students with disabilities.

Provide support and training for parents seeking inclusive education for their children

Parents often require support to seek inclusive education and maximize their children’s development. This can be a difficult task. In the United States, the federal government funded parent training centers to offer this type of support. The Massachusetts Federation for Children and the Colorado Peak Center have been particularly effective in teaching parents the importance of inclusion and how to obtain and support effective inclusive placements for their children.

Conclusion

In this report, we have analyzed evidence from over 280 research studies conducted in 25 countries. We found consistent evidence that inclusive educational settings (those in which children with disabilities are educated alongside their non-disabled peers) can offer substantial short- and long-term benefits for children’s cognitive and social development. The issue was studied in many ways with diverse student populations. The magnitude of the benefits of inclusive education may vary by study, but the vast majority report significant benefits for students educated alongside their non-disabled peers or, at worst, show no difference between included and non-included students.

Research evidence also suggests that, in most cases, being educated alongside a student with a disability does not have negative consequences for non-disabled students. In fact, research on effective inclusive schools indicates that inclusion can have significant positive benefits for all students. What these effective inclusive schools discovered is that inclusion is not just about placing disabled and non-disabled students in the same classrooms. The effective inclusion of a student with a disability requires teachers and school administrators to develop a better understanding of the individual strengths and needs of each student, not just those with disabilities. Teachers in inclusive classrooms cannot simply direct the curriculum to the average student. This means providing students with multiple ways to engage with classroom material, multiple representations of curriculum concepts, and multiple means for students to express what they have learned. This type of reasoned, universal design approach to learning benefits both disabled and non-disabled students.

However, despite this evidence, students with disabilities continue to face challenges in accessing quality education. Long-held misconceptions about the ability of children with intellectual, physical, sensory, and learning disabilities to benefit from formal education have led, for generations, to educators denying these students access to formal education. Even in countries where laws guarantee the educational rights of these students, educational options are sometimes limited, and services are provided through separate programs that segregate students with and without disabilities.

The evidence presented in this document offers a clear message that inclusion should be the norm for students with disabilities.

References

  • Ajuwon, P. M. (2008). Inclusive Education for Students with Disabilities in Nigeria: Benefits, Challenges and Policy Implications. International Journal of Special Education, 23(3), 11–16.
  • Alhassan, A. M. (2014). Teachers` implementation of Inclusive Education in Ghanaian primary schools: An insight into government policy and practice. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 1(2), 115–129.
  • Allport, G. W. (1979). The Nature of Prejudice. Basic Books.
  • Alton, S. (1998). Differentiation not discrimination: Delivering the curriculum for children with Down’s syndrome in mainstream schools. Support for Learning, 13(4), 167–173. http://doi.org/10.1111/1467- 9604.00083
  • Baer, R. M., Daviso, A. W., Flexer, R. W., Queen, R. M., & Meindl, R. S. (2011). Students With Intellectual Disabilities: Predictors of Transition Outcomes. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 885728811399090. http://doi.org/10.1177/0885728811399090
  • Baker, E. T., Wang, M., & Walberg, H. (1995). The Effects of Inclusion on Learning. Educational Leadership, 52(4), 33–35.
  • Barrett, W., & Randall, L. (2004). Investigating the Circle of Friends Approach: Adaptations and Implications for Practice. Educational Psychology in Practice, 20(4), 353–368. http://doi.org/10.1080/0266736042000314286
  • Blackorby, J., Knokey, A.-M., Wagner, M., Levine, P., Schiller, E., & Sumi, C. (2007). What Makes a Difference? Influences on Outcomes for Students with Disabilities. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from http://www.seels.net/designdocs/SEELS_W1W3_FINAL.pdf
  • Blackorby, J., Wagner, M., Marder, C., Cameto, R., Levine, P., Chorost, M., & Guzman, A.-M. (2004). Inside the Classroom: The Language Arts Classroom Experiences of Elementary and Middle School Students with Disabilities. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from http://www.seels.net/designdocs/SEELS_Classroom_Final_Report_April_2004.pdf
  • Bossaert, G., Boer, A. A. de, Frostad, P., Pijl, S. J., & Petry, K. (2015). Social participation of students with special educational needs in different educational systems. Irish Educational Studies, 34(1), 43–54. http://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2015.1010703
  • Bouillet, D. (2013). Some Aspects of Collaboration in Inclusive Education – Teachers’ Experiences. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 3(2), 93–117.
  • Buckley, S., Bird, G., Sacks, B., & Archer, T. (2006). A comparison of mainstream and special education for teenagers with Down syndrome: Implications for parents and teachers. Down Syndrome Research and Practice, 9(3), 54–67. http://doi.org/10.3104/reports.295
  • Bunch, G., & Valeo, A. (2004). Student attitudes toward peers with disabilities in inclusive and special education schools. Disability & Society, 19(1), 61–76. http://doi.org/10.1080/0968759032000155640
  • Cardona, C. M. (2000). Regular classroom teachers’ perceptions of inclusion: implications for teacher preparation programmes in Spain. Educational Research in Europe, 37–48.
  • Carlson, L., Hemmings, B., Wurf, G., & Reupert, A. (2012). The instructional strategies and attitudes of effective inclusive teachers. Special Education Perspectives [P], 21(1), 7–20.
  • Carter, E. W., & Hughes, C. (2006). Including High School Students with Severe Disabilities in General Education Classes: Perspectives of General and Special Educators, Paraprofessionals, and Administrators. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31(2), 174–185. http://doi.org/10.1177/154079690603100209
  • Carter, E. W., Hughes, C., Guth, C. B., & Copeland, S. R. (2005). Factors Influencing Social Interaction Among High School Students With Intellectual Disabilities and Their General Education Peers. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 110(5), 366–377. http://doi.org/10.1352/0895-8017(2005)110QEC_KEEP_0_QEC2.0.CO;2
  • Chiner, E., & Cardona, M. C. (2013). Inclusive education in Spain: how do skills, resources, and supports affect regular education teachers’ perceptions of inclusion? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(5), 526–541. http://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2012.689864
  • Consiglio, A., Guarnera, M., & Magnano, P. (2015). Representation of Disability. Verification of the Contact Hypothesis in School. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 1964–1969. http://doi. org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.408
  • Coyne, P., Pisha, B., Dalton, B., Zeph, L. A., & Smith, N. C. (2012). Literacy by Design A Universal Design for Learning Approach for Students With Significant Intellectual Disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 33(3), 162–172. http://doi.org/10.1177/0741932510381651
  • Cuckle, P., & Wilson, J. (2002). Social relationships and friendships among young people with Down’s syndrome in secondary schools. British Journal of Special Education, 29(2), 66–71. http://doi. org/10.1111/1467-8527.00242
  • Curcic, S. (2009). Inclusion in PK-12: an international perspective. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(5), 517–538. http://doi.org/10.1080/13603110801899585
  • de Graaf, G., & van Hove, G. (2015). Learning to read in regular and special schools: A follow-up study of students with Down syndrome. Life Span and Disability, 18(1), 7–39.
  • de Graaf, G., van Hove, G., & Haveman, M. (2013). More academics in regular schools? The effect of regular versus special school placement on academic skills in Dutch primary school students with Down syndrome. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 57(1), 21–38. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365- 2788.2011.01512.x
  • de Graaf, G., van Hove, G., & Haveman, M. (2014). A quantitative assessment of educational integration of students with Down syndrome in the Netherlands. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 58(7), 625–636. http://doi.org/10.1111/jir.12060
  • Department of Education. (2001). Education white paper 6: Special needs education: Building an inclusive education and training system. Pretoria: Department of Education.
  • Dessemontet, R. S., & Bless, G. (2013). The impact of including children with intellectual disability in general education classrooms on the academic achievement of their low-, average-, and high-achieving peers. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 38(1), 23–30. http://doi.org/10.3109/13668250.201 2.757589
  • Dessemontet, R. S., Bless, G., & Morin, D. (2012). Effects of inclusion on the academic achievement and adaptive behaviour of children with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 56(6), 579–587. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2011.01497.x
  • D’Haem, J. (2008). Special at school but lonely at home: An alternative friendship group for adolescents with Down syndrome. Down Syndrome Research and Practice, 12(2), 107–111. http://doi.org/10.3104/ practice.2012
  • Dolva, A., Gustavsson, A., Borell, L., & Hemmingsson, H. (2011). Facilitating peer interaction – support to children with Down syndrome in mainstream schools. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 26(2), 201–213. http://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2011.563607
  • European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. (2010). Special Needs Education Country Data 2010. Odense, Denmark: European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. Retrieved from https://www.european-agency.org/sites/default/files/special-needs-educationcountry-data-2010_SNE-Country-Data-2010.pdf
  • Farrell, P., Dyson, A., Polat, F., Hutcheson, G., & Gallannaugh, F. (2007). Inclusion and achievement in mainstream schools. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 22(2), 131–145. http://doi. org/10.1080/08856250701267808
  • Fernández, A. (1999). Estudio de las actitudes del profesorado de los centros ordinarios de Vizcaya hacia la integración escolar. Hacia una nueva concepción de la discapacidad: Actas de las III Jornadas Científicas de Investigación sobre personas con discapacidad (pp. 415–424). Salamanca, Spain. Retrieved from https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=990829
  • Fletcher, J. (2010). Spillover effects of inclusion of classmates with emotional problems on test scores in early elementary school. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29(1), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20479
  • Fox, S., Farrell, P., & Davis, P. (2004). Factors associated with the effective inclusion of primary-aged pupils with Down’s syndrome. British Journal of Special Education, 31(4), 184–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0952-3383.2004.00353.x
  • Freeman, S. F. N., & Alkin, M. C. (2000). Academic and Social Attainments of Children with Mental Retardation in General Education and Special Education Settings. Remedial and Special Education, 21(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/104744940002100102
  • Friesen, J., Hickey, R., & Krauth, B. (2010). Disabled Peers and Academic Achievement. Education Finance and Policy, 5(3), 317–348. http://doi.org/10.1162/EDFP_a_00003
  • Gandhi, A. G. (2007). Context Matters: Exploring relations between inclusion and reading achievement of students without disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 54(1), 91–112. http://doi.org/10.1080/10349120601149797
  • Georgiadi, M., Kalyva, E., Kourkoutas, E., & Tsakiris, V. (2012). Young Children’s Attitudes Toward Peers with Intellectual Disabilities: Effect of the Type of School. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 25(6), 531–541. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3148.2012.00699.x
  • Giangreco, M. F., Dennis, R., Cloninger, C., Edelman, S., & Schattman, R. (1993). “I’ve counted Jon”: Transformational Experiences of Teachers Educating Students with Disabilities. Exceptional Children, 59(4), 359–372.
  • Gilmore, L., Campbell, J., & Cuskelly, M. (2003). Developmental expectations, personality stereotypes, and attitudes towards inclusive education: Community and teacher views of Down syndrome. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 50(1), 65–76. http://doi.org/10.1080/1034912032000053340
  • Gottfried, M. A. (2014). Classmates With Disabilities and Students’ Noncognitive Outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(1), 20–43. http://doi.org/10.3102/0162373713493130
  • Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., & Rivkin, S. G. (2002). Inferring Program Effects for Special Populations: Does Special Education Raise Achievement for Students with Disabilities? Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(4), 584–599. http://doi.org/10.1162/003465302760556431
  • Hehir, T., Grindal, T., & Eidelman, H. (2012). Review of special education in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Retrieved from http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/hehir/2012-04sped.pdf
  • Hehir, T., & Katzman, L. I. (2012). Effective inclusive schools designing successful schoolwide programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/id/10650970
  • Hübner Mendes, R., & de Macedo, L. (2011, September 30). Diversa – Case study – The Case of the Clarisse Fecury School – Rio Branco, Acre, Brazil. Retrieved April 12, 2016, from http://diversa.org.br/en/casestudies/case/the_case_of_the_clarisse_fecury_school_rio_branco_acre_brazil
  • Hughes, J. (2006). Inclusive education for individuals with Down syndrome. Down Syndrome News and Update, 6(1), 1–3. http://doi.org/10.3104/practice.370
  • Hunt, P., & Farron-Davis, F. (1992). A Preliminary Investigation of IEP Quality and Content Associated with Placement in General Education versus Special Education Classes. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 17(4), 247–253. http://doi.org/10.1177/154079699201700406
  • National Institute for Educational Studies and Research Anísio Teixeira. (2014). School Census of Basic Education 2013 Technical Summary (p. 39). Retrieved from http://download.inep.gov.br/educacao_basica/ censo_escolar/resumos_tecnicos/resumo_tecnico_censo_educacao_basica_2013.pdf
  • Unibanco Institute. (2016, August). Inclusion increases, but access to high school is still a challenge. Retrieved from http://www.institutounibanco.org.br/aprendizagem-em-foco/15/
  • Justice, L. M., Logan, J. A. R., Lin, T.-J., & Kaderavek, J. N. (2014). Peer Effects in Early Childhood Education Testing the Assumptions of Special-Education Inclusion. Psychological Science, 25(9), 1722–1729. http://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614538978
  • Kalambouka, A., Farrell, P., Dyson, A., & Kaplan, I. (2007). The impact of placing pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools on the achievement of their peers. Educational Research, 49(4), 365–382. http://doi.org/10.1080/00131880701717222
  • Katz, J., & Mirenda, P. (2002). Including students with developmental disabilities in general education classrooms: Social benefits. Retrieved from http://www.internationalsped.com/magazines_ articles/172full.pdf#page=27
  • Kirjavainen, T., Pulkkinen, J., & Jahnukainen, M. (2016). Special education students in transition to further education: A four-year register-based follow-up study in Finland. Learning and Individual Differences, 45, 33–42. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.12.001
  • Laws, G., Byrne, A., & Buckley, S. (2000). Language and Memory Development in Children with Down Syndrome at Mainstream Schools and Special Schools: A comparison. Educational Psychology, 20(4), 447–457.
  • Marder, C., Wagner, M., & Sumi, C. (2003). The social adjustment of youth with disabilities. In The Achievements of Youth With Disabilities During Secondary School: A Report From the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
  • Myklebust, J. O. (2007). Diverging paths in upper secondary education: competence attainment among students with special educational needs. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 11(2), 215–231.
  • National Center on Universal Design for Learning. (2014, September 18). The Three Principles | National Center On Universal Design for Learning. Retrieved April 11, 2016, from http://www.udlcenter.org/ aboutudl/whatisudl/3principles
  • Newman, L., Davies, E., & Marder, C. (2003). School Engagement of Youth With Disabilities. In The Achievements of Youth With Disabilities During Secondary School: A Report From the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
  • Newman, L., & Davies-Mercier, E. (2005). The school engagement of elementary and middle school students with disabilities. In Engagement, academics, social adjustment, and independence: The achievements of elementary and middle school students with disabilities. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from http://www.seels.net/designdocs/engagement/03_SEELS_outcomes_ C3_8-16-04.pdf
  • Ojok, P., & Wormnæs, S. (2013). Inclusion of pupils with intellectual disabilities: primary school teachers’ attitudes and willingness in a rural area in Uganda. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(9), 1003–1021. http://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2012.728251
  • Ortega-Tudela, J. M., & Gómez-Ariza, C. J. (2006). Computer-assisted teaching and mathematical learning in Down Syndrome children. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(4), 298–307. http://doi. org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00179.x
  • Oswald, M., & Swart, E. (2011). Addressing South African Pre-service Teachers’ Sentiments, Attitudes and Concerns Regarding Inclusive Education. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 58(4), 389–403. http://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2011.626665
  • Peetsma, T., Vergeer, M., Roeleveld, J., & Karsten, S. (2001). Inclusion in Education: Comparing pupils’ development in special and regular education. Educational Review, 53(2), 125–135. http://doi.org/10.1080/00131910125044
  • Peltier, G. (1997). The effect of inclusion on non-disabled children: A review of the research. Contemporary Education, 68(4), 234.
  • Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
  • Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2006). A Practical Reader in Universal Design for Learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
  • Ruijs, N. M., & Peetsma, T. T. D. (2009). Effects of inclusion on students with and without special educational needs reviewed. Educational Research Review, 4(2), 67–79. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2009.02.002
  • Saint-Laurent, L., Dionne, J., Giasson, J., Royer, É., Simard, C., & Piéarard, B. (1998). Academic Achievement Effects of an in-Class Service Model on Students with and without Disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64(2), 239–253. http://doi.org/10.1177/001440299806400207
  • Salend, S. J., & Duhaney, L. M. G. (1999). The Impact of Inclusion on Students With and Without Disabilities and Their Educators. Remedial and Special Education, 20(2), 114–126. http://doi.org/10.1177/074193259902000209
  • Schifter, L. A. (2015). Using Survival Analysis to Understand Graduation of Students With Disabilities. Exceptional Children, 14402915619418. http://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915619418
  • Schwab, S. (2015). Social dimensions of inclusion in education of 4th and 7th grade pupils in inclusive and regular classes: Outcomes from Austria. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 43–44, 72–79. http://doi. org/10.1016/j.ridd.2015.06.005
  • Sharma, U., Forlin, C., & Loreman, T. (2008). Impact of training on pre‐service teachers’ attitudes and concerns about inclusive education and sentiments about persons with disabilities. Disability & Society, 23(7), 773–785. http://doi.org/10.1080/09687590802469271
  • Sirlopú, D., González, R., Bohner, G., Siebler, F., Ordóñnez, G., Millar, A., … De Tezanos-Pinto, P. (2008). Promoting positive attitudes toward people with Down syndrome: The benefit of school inclusion programs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(11), 2710–2736. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559- 1816.2008.00411.x
  • Staub, D., & Peck, C. A. (1995). What Are the Outcomes for Nondisabled Students? Educational Leadership, 52(4), 36–40.
  • Stella, C. S. C., Forlin, C., & Lan, A. M. (2007). The Influence of an Inclusive Education Course on Attitude Change of Pre-service Secondary Teachers in Hong Kong. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 35(2), 161–179. http://doi.org/10.1080/13598660701268585
  • Sumi, C., Marder, C., & Wagner, M. (2005). The Social Adjustment of Elementary and Middle School Students with Disabilities. In Engagement, academics, social adjustment, and independence: The achievements of elementary and middle school students with disabilities. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from http://www.seels.net/designdocs/engagement/05_SEELS_outcomes_C5_10-3-05.pdf
  • Szumski, G., & Karwowski, M. (2014). Psychosocial Functioning and School Achievement of Children With Mild Intellectual Disability in Polish Special, Integrative, and Mainstream Schools. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 11(2), 99–108. http://doi.org/10.1111/jppi.12076
  • Tesemma, S. (2011). EDUCATING CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES IN AFRICA: Towards a policy of inclusion. Addis Ababa: The African Child Policy Forum. Retrieved from http://www.eenet.org.uk/resources/ docs/6519.pdf
  • Turner, S., Alborz, A., & Gayle, V. (2008). Predictors of academic attainments of young people with Down’s syndrome. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 52(5), 380–392. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365- 2788.2007.01038.x
  • UNESCO. (2009). Policy Guidelines on Inclusion in Education. Paris, France: UNESCO. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0017/001778/177849e.pdf
  • UNESCO Institute for Statistics, & UNICEF. (2015). Fixing the Broken Promise of Education for All: Findings from the Global Initiative on Out-of-School Children. Montreal: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000232993
  • UNICEF. (2003). Inclusive Education Initiatives for Children With Disabilities: Lessons From The East Asia And Pacific Region. Bangkok, Thailand: UNICEF. Retrieved from https://www.unicef.org/eap/media/inclusive-education-initiatives-children-disabilities-lessons-east-asia-and-pacific-region
  • Wagner, M., Blackorby, J., Cameto, R., & Newman, L. (1993). What Makes a Difference? Influences on Postschool Outcomes of Youth with Disabilities. The Third Comprehensive Report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from https://www.ldonline.org/sites/default/files/nlts-reports/nlts1_3rd_comprehensive_report.pdf
  • Wagner, M., Kutash, K., Duchnowski, A. J., & Epstein, M. H. (2005). The Special Education Elementary Longitudinal Study and the National Longitudinal Transition Study Study Designs and Implications for Children and Youth With Emotional Disturbance. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 13(1), 25–41. http://doi.org/10.1177/10634266050130010301
  • Waldron, N., & Cole, C. (2000). The Indiana Inclusion Study Year 1 Final Report. Retrieved from http://mn.gov/mnddc/parallels2/pdf/00s/00/00-IIS-INS.pdf
  • Wiener, J., & Tardif, C. Y. (2004). Social and Emotional Functioning of Children with Learning Disabilities: Does Special Education Placement Make a Difference? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19(1), 20–32. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2004.00086.x
  • Wolpert, G. (2001). What General Educators Have To Say About Successfully Including Students With Down Syndrome in Their Classes. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 16(1), 28–38. http://doi.org/10.1080/02568540109594972
  • Woolfson, L. M., & Brady, K. (2009). An investigation of factors impacting on mainstream teachers’ beliefs about teaching students with learning difficulties. Educational Psychology, 29(2), 221–238. http://doi.org/10.1080/01443410802708895
  • World Health Organization. (2011). World Report on Disability. Malta: World Health Organization. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/report.pdf
  • Zero Project. (2016). Brazil’s billion dollar National Plan for Inclusive Education. Retrieved from http://zeroproject.org/policy/brazils-billion-dollar-national-plan-for-inclusive-education

Notes

  1. Read the Salamanca Statement here: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0009/000984/098427eo.pdf
  2. For more information about the number and percentage of students with disabilities in the United States, see https://nces.ed.gov/FastFacts/display.asp?id=64
  3. The Contact Hypothesis was originally conceived to describe racial/ethnic discrimination and integration, but the framework has been applied to other traditionally marginalized groups (LGBTQ, physically disabled, mentally disabled, mentally ill, and the elderly) (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006).
  4. For additional details with respect to the National Longitudinal Transition Study, see http://www.nlts2.org/.
  5. Some of the sources reviewed in this evidence summary use the derogatory term “mental retardation.” We have replaced all references to “mental retardation” with “intellectual disability,” a preferred term. 
  6. Significant differences in employment and earnings are driven by large differences for students with sensory and physical disabilities. See (Wagner, Blackorby, Cameto, & Newman, 1993) for details.

Leave a Reply