The term ‘disabilities’ as a whole is a complex construct that is difficult to define.  With a history as old as humankind (Odom, Horner, Snell, & Blacher, 2007, p. 3), its definition has changed over time, serving new purposes and influencing new definitions (Odom et al., 2007, p. 3). While it has always been regarded as an ‘umbrella term’ (Odom et al., 2007, p. 3) that encompasses many definitions, it ultimately refers to one’s ability to execute a task or engage in an activity with a capacity that ranges from very specific limitations of learning or control to global impairments of basic functioning and intelligence (American Psychiatric Association, 2013, p. 68).  However, this notion of disability, though a positive one, did not always possess the positive, encouraging, and hopeful connotation as it does today.  In fact, society’s initial response to disabilities was extremely negative, pessimistic, and deficit-oriented (American Psychiatric Association, 2013, p. 7).  It wasn’t until a paradigmatic shift in the conceptualization of disabilities occurred in the 1990s (Odom et al., 2007, p. 8) when the focus shifted from what an individual was unable to do, to what an individual was able to do - that is, an approach that acknowledged the skills and abilities disabled individuals already possessed and could actually prove to thrive with.

​

Today, studies in both theory and practice continue to support this positive and inclusive approach and researchers have begun to implement it within the context of education.  As a result, it is proven that students with disabilities who have been included within the “regular” classroom thrive, and in fact, do not learn more in self-contained special education classrooms (Lawrence-Brown, 2004, p. 48).  This is because these classrooms foster segregation, as well as helplessness, dependency, lowered expectations, and delayed or inappropriate social behaviour (Chan, 2010).  Additionally, it has also become evident that students with special needs who have been included within the “regular” classroom can have a profound impact on all members of the school community in a positive and influential way.  For example, inclusion can bring forth leadership within the classroom and the larger school community whereby students can feel a sense of empowerment and that they too have a voice, are entitled to express it, and know that it will be heard (Maxam & Henderson, 2013).  Inclusion can also help to erase stigma and diminish the amount of labelling among those with disabilities.  Furthermore, it can bring forth exposure for both the disabled and non-disabled students.  This would include exposure to the different types of disabilities, personalities, ways of coping, and possibilities of interaction with others similar and different to yourself (Maxam & Henderson, 2013).  Finally, inclusion also promotes the incorporation of differentiation in the sense that it will not only assist those who present with disabilities, but so too will it recognize and support all learners equivalently (Lawrence-Brown, 2004, p. 36) by building upon their strengths and challenging their weaknesses.

​

Furthermore, from my own personal experience, I have also witnessed firsthand how influential this type of inclusion can be.  The classrooms and educational facilities I have worked within posit a strong reciprocity of learning.  It is evident in both life skills development and governmentally-implemented education that students with special needs both learn from and teach those without special needs.  The definition of authority and superiority of those without a disability is eradicated so that all students are treated equitably with the same equitable opportunities.  With this approach, all students are equally aware of the capacity they have to learn and grow academically, professionally, and personally, and ultimately, each student is regarded as a human being simply working, learning, educating, and ultimately inspiring one another alongside one another.

Unfortunately, however, despite these incredibly positive factors for inclusion, there are also several barriers to inclusion.  These include limited physical space and funding for the necessary equipment for those who require this type of assistance (Sklaroff, 1994; Skrtic, 1991; Fox & Ysseldyke, 1997), but primarily focuse on the deficiencies in pre-service and in-service teacher training (Secret Teacher, 2015; Schumm & Vaughn, 1995; Sklaroff, 1994, Tornillo, 1994).  Currently, teacher training is minimal and insufficient and certainly not conducive to assisting the needs of the students without a large burden.  As a result, teachers are ill-prepared as to how they can assist their students, and are falling prey to stress and burn-out (Constantinescu & Samuels, 1996; Moran, 2015; Secret Teacher, 2015).  Furthermore, some students may require more attention or a greater student-to-teacher ratio that may not necessarily be feasible if the teacher is focused on attending to the needs of the special needs student.  As a result, some teachers may find themselves spending an overabundance of time (or not enough time) with students, causing negative attitudes in the classroom and possibly even towards the student themselves (Constantinescu & Samuels, 1996).

​

Consequently, while these barriers may pose as problematic, they are not completely insurmountable.  With the appropriate education, training, and experiences, we can certainly assist teachers and educational staff in many ways.  Some solutions may be to:

​

• provide additional courses designed to learn about and even specialize in special education during a teacher training program, which could greatly help all teachers learn how to work with disabled students from the very beginning;

• make experience mandatory to obtain the special education additional qualifications to ensure that we award teachers with special education ‘specialist’ certifications only on the basis of full competency and confidence of inclusivity — not simply for a certificate’s sake;

• offer courses and workshops for licensed teachers and educators throughout the school year which would allow for educational staff to build upon the foundation they already have;

• suggest frequent school meetings with everyone in the process of inclusion, including parents and guardians, all teachers and educational assistants, the principal and vice-principal, and potentially, even school administrators with the hope that when more prominent individuals are involved on a more frequented basis, inclusion can take place in a far more efficient and effective manner;

• and/or include some stories of successful and unsuccessful students to help school staff better understand what programs (or aspects of certain programs) are working or not working, among many other possibilities.

​

Supplementary to this are the solutions offered HERE that include those imposed by the Finnish government.  The research I have conducted over the past several years on the Finnish education system suggests many additional and alternative solutions to eradicating the burden most educational staff evidently face with regards to inclusion.  This governmental system also sets forth a far more positive and optimistic outlook on the process of inclusion that I feel has the power to change many perspectives.  So with these collective solutions in mind, there certainly provides enough possibility for the development and implementation of inclusion to take place.  Thus, if we are able to work together, analyze the problematic areas within the process of inclusion, create an action plan to target these areas in order to diminish or even eradicate the problems altogether, and most paramount, provide the necessary guidance and support for every individual involved in the process, inclusion of all special needs students within the “regular” classroom environment is highly attainable. While it may be a lengthy and intricate process, it can certainly prove to be possible and ultimately one of great value for both teachers and students with special needs in the end.

​

Therefore, we must continue to strive for an educational system that whole-heartedly recognizes, accepts, understands, respects, and most importantly, honours the variety of social identities — a system that efficiently and effectively empowers its students to actively participate and collaborate with all types of others within their classrooms, schooling institutions, the community, the external communities at large, and beyond.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

References

​

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Section II: Diagnostic criteria and codes, Neurodevelopmental disabilities. Diagnostic and

          Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.) (pp. 68-70). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.

​

Chan, P. (9 February 2010). Special education: Are regular classrooms enough?

          http://www.aboutkidshealth.ca/en/news/columns/education/pages/special-education-are- regular-classrooms- enough.aspx

 

Constantinescu, C. & Samuels, C. (2016, September 6) Studies Flag Potential Downside to Inclusion. Retrieved February 21, 2018,

          from https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/09/07/studies-flag-potential-downside-to-inclusion.html

 

Fox, N.E., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (1997). Implementing inclusion at the middle school level. Exceptional Children, 64(1), 81-98.

 

Lawrence-Brown, D. (2004). Differentiated Instruction: Inclusive Strategies for Standards-Based Learning That Benefit The Whole

          Class. American Secondary Education, 32(3), 34-62. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41064522

​

Maxam, S., & Henderson, J. (2013). Inclusivity in the classroom: Understanding and embracing students with “Invisible disabilities”.

          Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 16(2), 71-81. doi:10.1177/1555458913487037

​

Odom, S. L., Horner, R. H., Snell, M. E., Blacher, J. (2007). Handbook of Developmental Disabilities. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

          Schumm, J. S., & Vaughn, S. (1995). Getting ready for inclusion: Is the stage set? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,

          10(3), 169-179.

​

Secret Teacher. (2015, May 23). Secret teacher: I am all for inclusion in principle, but it doesn't always work. Retrieved February 21,

          2018, from https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2015/may/23/secret-teacher-support-inclusion-but-not-at-any-cost

 

Sklaroff, S. (1994, January 12). A.F.T. urges halt to 'full inclusion' movement. Education Week (7).

​

Skrtic, T. (1991) The Special Education Paradox: Equity as the Way to Excellence. Harvard Educational Review: July 1991, Vol. 61, No.

          2, pp. 148-207.

​

Tornillo, P. (1994, March 6). A lightweight fad bad for our schools? Orlando Sentinel