Arguments Against Full Inclusion

Education’s two founding principles are that there will be education provided to all students that is “free and appropriate” and in “the least restrictive environment. In the past few years, a new movement has begun- full inclusion. The proponents of full inclusion have come from many backgrounds, but they all believe that self-containment classrooms are not the least restrictive environment for students with special needs. There are others who strongly argue against full inclusion with the primary claim that is not beneficial to any of the students or teachers involved. My views align fully with neither. As inclusion can be greatly beneficial, but it is not made for all students, I focus on the idea of partial inclusion. Full inclusion is defined as:
“Full inclusion means that students who were classified “special” or “exceptional” because of individual physical or mental characteristics would not be isolated into separate schools, separate classes, or …show more content…
By placing children with special needs in self-containment classrooms are we denying them an opportunity to excel further by giving them a chance in a regular classroom? There is a possibility that we are limiting children; however, the amount of testing, observing, recommendations, and generally studying of a child in the process of developing an Individualized Education Program, which places a child in self-contained classrooms, helps to deter misplacements. Beyond environmental set-ups that depend on school systems, separate is equal in some individual cases. If a student is not on the same readiness or ability level as other students because of a disability, adjustments have to be made in order to give those students an opportunity for success. “The learning disabilities field seems to recognize that being treated as an individual can usually be found more easily outside the regular classroom” (SEDL,