Many public schools in the United States are implementing inclusion programs; however, some research has shown that students with disabilities are not benefiting from inclusion. Part of the difficulty with inclusion lies with the implementation practices of the schools. Stigmatizing by labeling a child is another concern; even through inclusion, ownership of the child is questionable. It is also illogical to take children from the general education classroom, label them as having a disability, and then return them to the same classroom with modifications and support. Modification and support could easily be provided without referring children for special education services. By examining the assessment practices of schools, and the perception of inclusion by special education teachers, it is proposed that preclusion, the providing of modifications and support without special education, is best practice. Preclusion would not only benefit students who have disabilities without the stigma, but also those who would not qualify for special education, but would benefit from services provided in the general education classroom.

Go Back to Titles

Inclusion has been a critical issue in the field of special education for several years. Multiple studies have been conducted to validate or invalidate inclusionary practices (Hunt & Goetz, 1997; Salend & Duhaney, 1999) and the implementation procedures have been debated (Fox & Ysseldyke, 1997; Gerber, 1995; Salend & Duhaney, 1999; Shepherd & Brown, 2000). A major consideration of inclusion is whether it is best practice (Baker, & Zigmond, 1990; Fuchs, Fuchs, & Fernstrom, 1993; Synder, 1999).

According to the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), children with disabilities are to be placed in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). Under IDEA, the LRE states that children with disabilities will be educated to the maximum extent appropriate with students who do not have disabilities (CFR 300.550 (1)). In addition, IDEA clearly states that "special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in the regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily (CFR 300.550 (1)." Finally, IDEA stipulates that unless the students Individual Education Program requires some other arrangement, the student must be educated in the school where he would attend if he did not have a disability (CFR 300.552 (c). While not mentioned specifically in any federal regulations, inclusion evolved from LRE (Villa & Thousand, 1995), and the debate has often centered on whether inclusion is "appropriate" for the child with a disability (Gerber, 1995). The laws also specified that schools are to meet the individual needs of children with disabilities. As a result, children should not be placed in inclusionary programs carte blanche.

Inclusion should provide the necessary support to promote the learning of every student within the neighborhood school and the regular education classroom (Manset & Semmel, 1997). However, problems in implementing inclusion ranging from lack of training to lack of administrative support are common (Beattie, Anderson, & Antonak, 1997; Crockett, & Kauffman, 1998; Snyder, 1999). Often, due to this lackadaisical implementation of inclusion, students with disabilities do not benefit educationally from inclusion (Scruggs, & Mastropieri, 1995; Gerber, 1995) and teachers experience frustration.

One major flaw of inclusion exists which prevents it from being truly effective except in the most idealistic situations. True integration of students with disabilities in the general education classroom becomes increasingly difficult once a child has been placed under the special education umbrella. For all practical purposes, inclusion and special education is an oxymoron. Under special education, true inclusion does not exist and should not be considered a part of the continuum of services provided under IDEA. True inclusion should occur before special education services are considered. Schools are just as capable as providing this "preclusion" without stigmatizing children with a special education label.

This article will examine teachers' perceptions of inclusion, preclusion, and modifications attempted prior to special education referral. Assessment procedures that lead to inclusion and preclusion will be reviewed. Implementation of inclusion and preclusion will be discussed, as well as the advantages of preclusion over inclusion.

Go back to Titles

Inclusion Versus Preclusion: Operational Definitions

Inclusion is providing the necessary support to promote the learning of every student within the neighborhood school and the regular education classroom. The only significant difference between inclusion and preclusion is that students with disabilities are included in the neighborhood school and the regular education classroom without referring them to special education services. Thus, preclusion is providing the necessary support to promote the learning of every student within the neighborhood school and the regular education classroom without special education referral. Inclusion is providing the necessary support to promote the learning of every student within the neighborhood school and the regular education classroom after special education referral. In effect, preclusion is true inclusion. The child is never labeled and is never stigmatized for being different.

Before children are identified and placed in special education, they must go through a comprehensive, non-biased evaluation process. This assessment process has three basic components: screening, pre-referral, and referral. Each successive component builds on the previous component. The resulting combination is a full, comprehensive, non-biased evaluation.

Nearly all students are screened. Screening involves routine tests, such as visual and auditory examinations that assist school personnel in identifying students that may need further testing. Screening tests could include group intelligence and achievement tests or other measures that lend themselves to administration in groups rather than on an individual basis. The purpose of the screening process is to identify students who may be at risk of developing education problems or need additional evaluation.

Pre-referral is the second step in the assessment process. This step may be prompted by information gathered during the screening process. However, it is more common that this step is prompted when the student's general education teacher suspects a learning or behavioral problem and asks other educators to help identify educational strategies to address these problems. Usually in At-Risk Teams, members identify modifications and adaptations that will assist the student to be successful in the regular classroom environment.

If a learning problem still exists after the pre-referral stage, the student is then referred to special education evaluation. After a multifaceted evaluation process, the student may be identified as eligible for special education services. If special education services are needed, an individual education plan is developed to address the specific needs of the child.

Typically, in the inclusion model, a child is screened. When a learning or behavioral problem is suspected, the pre-referral process begins. Ideally, the student is provided with modifications and adaptations designed to assist with the child's educational performance. However, if the student is not successful at the pre-referral stage, the child is referred for special education evaluation. Unfortunately, many general education teachers feel that accommodations made are not feasible because of their other responsibilities or because providing adaptations is unfair to other students (Klingner, & Vaughn, 1999; Vaughn, Reiss, Rothlein, & Hughes, 1999; Vaughn, Schumm, Jallad, Slusher, & Saumell, 1996). As a result, adaptations and modifications developed at the pre-referral stage are either not extensive enough to meet the needs of the child or are not enthusiastically ensued. Once a child has been referred for special education, the odds are favorable that the student will be identified as having a disability and eligible for special education services (Algozzine, Christenson, & Ysseldkye, 1982). This service may include being placed in an inclusionary classroom with modifications and adaptations designed to assist with the child's educational performance. However, often children are placed in a more restrictive, separate setting for part or all of the school day based on their categorical eligibility.

In the preclusionary model, a child is referred when the child's teacher suspects a learning or behavioral problem following screening. Again, the At-Risk Team identifies modifications and adaptations designed to increase the student's academic success. However, this is an intense procedure designed to prevent a child from being referred for special education evaluation. The team meets often to discuss the child's progress. Modifications and adaptations are evaluated, and if necessary, revised. Although the child may be suspected of having a disability, and thereby protected under Section 504, he or she is never removed from the general education classroom nor referred for special education evaluation. If the pre-referral stage is done appropriately, the child will be precluded in the general education classroom. If the student is still having learning or behavioral difficulties, the referral stage is initiated.

However, this should be only if the child's learning and behavior are so severe that his or her needs cannot be met in the general education setting even with adequate program modifications, supplementary aid and services. If this child is identified as having a disability and the case conference committee determines that the most appropriate placement is an inclusionary classroom, then the pre-referral stage (or a preclusion stage) may not have been completed appropriately. This could suggest that preclusion would be the appropriate model and inclusion would no longer be an issue.

Go back to Titles