special education inclusion data

Read our research on: Abortion | Podcasts | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

What federal education data shows about students with disabilities in the u.s..

Public K-12 schools in the United States educate about 7.3 million students with disabilities – a number that has grown over the last few decades. Disabled students ages 3 to 21 are served under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) , which guarantees them the right to free public education and appropriate special education services.

For Disability Pride Month , here are some key facts about public school students with disabilities, based on the latest data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) .

July is both Disability Pride Month and the anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. To mark these occasions, Pew Research Center used federal education data from the National Center for Education Statistics to learn more about students who receive special education services in U.S. public schools.

In this analysis, students with disabilities include those ages 3 to 21 who are served under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) . Through IDEA, children with disabilities are guaranteed a “free appropriate public education,” including special education and related services.

The 7.3 million disabled students in the U.S. made up 15% of national public school enrollment during the 2021-22 school year. The population of students in prekindergarten through 12th grade who are served under IDEA has grown in both number and share over the last few decades. During the 2010-11 school year, for instance, there were 6.4 million students with disabilities in U.S. public schools, accounting for 13% of enrollment.

The number of students receiving special education services temporarily dropped during the coronavirus pandemic – the first decline in a decade. Between the 2019-20 and 2020-21 school years, the number of students receiving special education services decreased by 1%, from 7.3 million to 7.2 million. This was the first year-over-year drop in special education enrollment since 2011-12.

A line chart showing that fewer U.S. children received special education services in first full school year of COVID-19 pandemic.

The decline in students receiving special education services was part of a 3% decline in the overall number of students enrolled in public schools between 2019-20 and 2020-21. While special education enrollment bounced back to pre-pandemic levels in the 2021-22 school year, overall public school enrollment remained flat.

These enrollment trends may reflect some of the learning difficulties and health concerns students with disabilities and their families faced during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic , which limited or paused special education services in many school districts.

Many school districts struggle to hire special education professionals. During the 2020-21 school year, 40% of public schools that had a special education teaching vacancy reported that they either found it very difficult to fill the position or were not able to do so.

Foreign languages (43%) and physical sciences (37%) were the only subjects with similarly large shares of hard-to-fill teaching vacancies at public schools that were looking to hire in those fields.

While the COVID-19 pandemic called attention to a nationwide teacher shortage , special education positions have long been among the most difficult for school districts to fill .

The most common type of disability for students in prekindergarten through 12th grade involves “specific learning disabilities,” such as dyslexia. In 2021-22, about a third of students (32%) receiving services under IDEA had a specific learning disability. Some 19% had a speech or language impairment, while 15% had a chronic or acute health problem that adversely affected their educational performance. Chronic or acute health problems include ailments such as heart conditions, asthma, sickle cell anemia, epilepsy, leukemia and diabetes.

A chart showing that about a third of disabled U.S. students have a 'specific learning disability,' such as dyslexia.

Students with autism made up 12% of the nation’s schoolchildren with disabilities in 2021-22, compared with 1.5% in 2000-01. During those two decades, the share of disabled students with a specific learning disability, such as dyslexia, declined from 45% to 32%.

The percentage of students receiving special education services varies widely across states. New York serves the largest share of disabled students in the country at 20.5% of its overall public school enrollment. Pennsylvania (20.2%), Maine (20.1%) and Massachusetts (19.3%) serve the next-largest shares. The states serving the lowest shares of disabled students include Texas and Idaho (both 11.7%) and Hawaii (11.3%).

A map showing that New York, Pennsylvania and Maine public schools serve the highest percentages of students with disabilities.

Between the 2000-01 and 2021-22 school years, all but 12 states experienced growth in their disabled student populations. The biggest increase occurred in Utah, where the disabled student population rose by 65%. Rhode Island saw the largest decline of 22%.

These differences by state are likely the result of inconsistencies in how states determine which students are eligible for special education services and challenges in identifying disabled children.

A cartogram that shows between the 2000-01 and 2021-22 school years, most states saw growth in population of students with disabilities.

The racial and ethnic makeup of the nation’s special education students is similar to public school students overall, but there are differences by sex. About two-thirds of disabled students (65%) are male, while 34% are female, according to data from the 2021-22 school year. Overall student enrollment is about evenly split between boys and girls.

A dot plot showing that U.S. special education students tend to be male.

Research has shown that decisions about whether to recommend a student for special education may be influenced by their school’s socioeconomic makeup, as well as by the school’s test scores and other academic markers.

Note: This is an update of a post originally published April 23, 2020.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivered Saturday mornings

Race and LGBTQ Issues in K-12 Schools

From businesses and banks to colleges and churches: americans’ views of u.s. institutions, fewer young men are in college, especially at 4-year schools, 9 facts about bullying in the u.s., about 1 in 5 u.s. teens who’ve heard of chatgpt have used it for schoolwork, most popular.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Special Education: Definition, Statistics, and Trends

Corrected : An earlier version of this story misnamed the federal law governing special education. The correct name is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Definition of special education

Special education encompasses the programs which serve students with mental, physical, emotional, and behavioral disabilities. The major law governing special education is the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which guarantees a “free appropriate public education” to children with disabilities and mandates that, to the “maximum extent appropriate,” they be educated with their nondisabled peers in the “least restrictive environment.” Read more .

What is an IEP?

An Individualized Education Program, or IEP, is a program tailored to meet the individual needs of students with disabilities. The program is written in collaboration with a child’s school district, their parent or guardian, and sometimes, the student. The document outlines the special educational needs based on the student’s identified disability. Read more .

How many students are in special education?

In the U.S. overall, 14.7 percent of all students were special education students (ages 3-21) in 2021-22. The percentage varied by state from 11.3 percent in Hawaii to 20.5 percent in New York.

Share of special education students by state

See the percent of special education students by state in the map below:

Has the number of students served in special education increased?

Yes. In the past decade , the number of students with disabilities has grown from 6.4 million, or 12.9 percent of all students in 2011-12, to almost 7.3 million, or 14.7 percent in 2021-22.

Special education statistics by race

While overall, 14.7 percent of public school students were served by IDEA in 2020-21 , that number varies by race and ethnicity.

Are schools overidentifying minority students with disabilities?

Federal law requires that states monitor their districts for overidentifying students with disabilities. Several studies have found that minority students are actually being under identified for disabilities .

But some new studies are uncovering more nuanced findings, suggesting that minority students are overidentified in some contexts and underidentified in others. Read more .

What are the demographics of special education teachers?

Although research has shown that students often do better in school when they have a teacher of the same race, just over 81.8 percent of special education high school teachers in public schools are white, higher than the teaching population as a whole, according to the most recent data available . But under half of all students receiving special education services are white, according to 2021 -2 2 data .

Read more about efforts to prepare, recruit, and retain special education teachers of color.

Inclusion statistics

A majority of special education students—66.5 percent of those ages 6-21 and 5-year-olds in kindergarten—spend 80 percent or more of their time in regular education classes, according to 2021 data . That number has more than doubled in recent decades. In 1989, only 31.7 percent of students ages 6-21 spent 80 percent or more of their time in regular classes.

Getting students with disabilities into general education classrooms is not a silver bullet, researchers say. Read more to learn what else needs to happen to raise academic outcomes for students with disabilities.

Learning disabilities statistics

The specific learning disabilities category is the most common one covered under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act—in 2021-22 , 32.4 percent of students with disabilities had specific learning disabilities.

Autism statistics

12.2 percent of all students with disabilities have been diagnosed with autism alone, according to 2021-22 data.

Which disability categories have grown the most?

In the past decade, the number of students with disabilities as a percentage of total enrollment has increased a small amount, from 12.9 percent in 2011-12 to 14.7 percent in 2021-22 . The mix of disabilities those students have, however, has changed dramatically.

The percent of students with disabilities who had a specific learning disability, like dyslexia, decreased from 36 percent in 2011-12 to 32.4 percent in 2021-22. And the percent of students with disabilities with autism grew from 7.1 percent to 12.2 percent over the same period.

How much money is spent on special education by the federal government?

In fiscal year 2018, the federal government earmarked $12.3 billion for the education of children ages 3-12 with disabilities. That’s only about 15 percent of the excess cost of educating students with disabilities, compared with the cost of educating a general education student. The federal government under the 1975 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act set a goal to pay states up to 40 percent of the excess cost. It never reached that goal.

For more on special education funding, read this explainer .

What is the student-teacher ratio for special education students?

In 2016, there were 17.1 special education students for each special education teacher in the United States. That’s higher than the overall student-teacher ratio of 16.2 students per teacher.

From 2006 to 2016, the number of special education teachers decreased by 17 percent, while the number of special education students only dropped by 1 percent. Read more about how that plays out on the school level.

For more information on special education, check out our Special Education topics page .

How to Cite This Article Riser-Kositsky, M. (2019, December 17). Special Education: Definition, Statistics, and Trends. Education Week. Retrieved Month Day, Year from https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/special-education-definition-statistics-and-trends/2019/12

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

How included are students with disabilities in your local schools?

Advocates want all children to feel included in their communities. In a school setting, this usually means having students with disabilities spend as much time as possible in regular classrooms (with, importantly, any needed supports). Research shows that, in general, disabled students make much more progress when surrounded by their typically developing peers. Typical peers also benefit from the inclusive environment, as accommodations like universal design end up benefitting many, as well as giving them confidence that, in a supportive community, their own unique needs will be met. Additionally, inclusive environments can help reduce stigma and discrimination.

This tool allows you to explore the most recent data on inclusion and outcomes for children with IEPs from school districts around your state. To begin, enter the name of a district below, or select one or more on the map.

Find a school district

The inclusion score is calculated based on reported rates of how much time students with disabilities spend in regular classrooms, compared to the other districts in the state.

Small districts have less than 500 students with IEPs. Large districts have 500 or more.

Data is from the 2021-22 school year (unless otherwise noted) and comes from the Oregon Department of Education . Geography data comes from the US Census .

California college savings accounts aren’t getting to all the kids who need them

How improv theater class can help kids heal from trauma

50 years later: How Lau v. Nichols changed education for English learners

Patrick Acuña’s journey from prison to UC Irvine | Video

Family reunited after four years separated by Trump-era immigration policy

School choice advocate, CTA opponent Lance Christensen would be a very different state superintendent

Black teachers: How to recruit them and make them stay

Lessons in higher education: What California can learn

Keeping California public university options open

Superintendents: Well-paid and walking away

The debt to degree connection

College in prison: How earning a degree can lead to a new life

March 21, 2024

Raising the curtain on Prop 28: Can arts education help transform California schools?

February 27, 2024

Keeping options open: Why most students aren’t eligible to apply to California’s public universities

Teacher Voices

Now is the time for schools to invest in special-education inclusion models that benefit all students

Kimberly Berry

November 10, 2021.

Ivan was a fourth grader with big brown eyes, a wide smile and a quiet demeanor who refused to enter my classroom. “Everyone thinks I’m stupid,” he’d say. I’ve changed his name to protect his privacy.

At the time, my school employed a pull-out model for students with disabilities, meaning they were removed from their assigned classrooms to receive specialized services and supports. This left Ivan feeling embarrassed, ostracized and resistant to putting forth academic effort.

One in 8 students in U.S. public schools have an individualized education plan, or IEP, making them eligible for special education services. About 750,000 students with disabilities attend California public schools. Many, like Ivan, do not respond well to being substantially separated from their peers. Research suggests that inclusion models designed to integrate students with and without disabilities into a single learning environment can lead to stronger academic and social outcomes.

At Caliber ChangeMakers Academy — where I have been a program specialist for five of the 10 years I have worked with students with disabilities — we knew an inclusion model was best for Ivan and many others. Yet, we didn’t think we had the tools or resources to make it possible.

We were wrong.

Schools can support students like Ivan — and those of all abilities — to learn from and alongside one another in an inclusive setting without exorbitant costs if they rethink how they allocate resources and develop educators’ confidence and competence in teaching all students in a general education setting.

In 2019, we began intentionally organizing staff, time and money toward inclusion, and we did so without spending more than similar public schools do that don’t focus on inclusion.

Now, with the infusion of federal Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief funding, schools have additional resources to invest in this approach now, in service to longer-term, sustainable change.

The nonprofit Education Resource Strategies studied our school and three others in California that are doing this work without larger investments of resources. Their analysis examines the resource shifts that inclusion-focused schools employ and can be tapped by other schools considering this work, taking a “do now, build toward” approach that addresses student needs and sustains these changes even after the emergency federal funding expires. Many of their recommendations mirror the steps we took to pursue an inclusion model.

It didn’t happen overnight, but three steps were important to our efforts to adopt a more inclusive model for teaching and learning:

Shift special education staff into general education classrooms to support targeted group sizes. At Caliber ChangeMakers Academy, special education teachers are departmentalized, each serving as a co-teacher to two general education teachers, leveraging their content expertise to share responsibility for classroom instruction. That means some special education teachers now teach students who are not part of their caseload. That means they are tracking the goals of more students, which also means that young people have more specialty educators working together to support their individual needs.
Prioritize connected professional learning around inclusion for all teachers . We adjusted teachers’ schedules to incorporate collaborative time for general education and special education teachers to meet before, during and after lessons to plan engaging, differentiated instruction for all. On the surface, the reduction in individual planning time might be a challenge. However, our teachers have found that they now feel more prepared, effective and connected because they have a partner to turn to for feedback, suggestions and encouragement.
Invest in social-emotional and mental health staff to narrow the scope of special education teachers. These staff members work to reduce unnecessary special education referrals and mitigate troubles facing students regardless of their disability status. They also can help address unexpected challenges, meaning special education teachers can spend more time in general education classrooms. A tradeoff we made is to slightly increase class sizes with fewer general administrative and support staff to prioritize hiring experienced social-emotional learning and mental health professionals.

For schools eager to adopt a more inclusive instructional model, now is the time. The emergency federal funding creates unprecedented opportunities for school and system leaders to build research-backed, sustainable inclusion models that can better meet the needs of all students, including students with disabilities.

I’ve seen firsthand that inclusive, diverse classrooms can provide powerful learning opportunities for all students.

As for Ivan, he’s now in eighth grade and thriving in an inclusive, co-teaching classroom. He went from completing almost no academic work independently to completing science lab reports on his own, working in collaborative groups in his English class and declaring that he loves math. Because our school invested in and normalized differentiated supports in an inclusive setting, now Ivan and many other students are getting what they need to be successful academically, socially and emotionally.

Kimberly Berry is a special education program specialist at Caliber ChangeMakers Academy in Vallejo.

The opinions in this commentary are those of the author. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us .

To get more reports like this one, click here to sign up for EdSource’s no-cost daily email on latest developments in education.

Comments (3)

Leave a comment, your email address will not be published. required fields are marked * *.

Click here to cancel reply.

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Comments Policy

We welcome your comments. All comments are moderated for civility, relevance and other considerations. Click here for EdSource's Comments Policy .

Karina Villalona 2 years ago 2 years ago

I speak as a mom of two kids in co-teaching collaborative classes for their 4 main academic subjects, as well as a former teacher, and a school psychologist for 19 years. I agree with much of what Ms. Berry states. Co-teaching programs can be very successful for both general and special education students if all of the appropriate supports are in place (as listed by Ms. Berry). However, it is important to clarify that this … Read More

However, it is important to clarify that this model is not a panacea. Students with cognitive skills that are far below the average range have also shared how incredibly frustrating being in co-teaching classes can be for them. Even with support from the special education teacher, the pacing for some students is way too fast. In addition, depending on what the student’s specific classification is, co-teaching on its own does not allow an opportunity for remedial instruction.

My daughters are dyslexic. They participate in co-teaching with a lot of support from the special education teacher. They have one period of direct instruction in reading via an Orton-Gillingham based program and one period of Resource Room daily which allows them to work on content from the general education classes that they might need to review, break down or preview.

So, yes, co-teaching can be great for some students when the program is well managed and staffed; however, we cannot ignore the need for small group supports and remedial instruction when necessary.

Craig 2 years ago 2 years ago

Studies cited showing benefits of inclusion model typically suffer from selection bias, and there are no significant data on the effects of inclusion models on neurotypical peers. Does the author of this piece have data showing results that support her claims? Also, what do the teachers in this program have to say about it, in the first person? If this is truly working as presented it will be a game changer.

Monica Saraiya 2 years ago 2 years ago

The inclusion model is not a one size fits all one. Students with significant learning differences do not receive the services that best meet their needs in this model. As with all practices in education, inclusion must be one, but not the only way to service students who need specialized help with their learning.

EdSource Special Reports

Bias, extra work and feelings of isolation: 5 Black teachers tell their stories

Five Black teachers talk about what they face each day in California classrooms, and what needs to change to recruit and retain more Black teachers.

Bills address sexual harassment in California public colleges

Proposals follow a report detailing deficiencies in how the UC, CSU and California community college systems handle complaints.

Research shows having a Black teacher in the classroom has a positive impact on students, but the number of Black teachers is declining.

Disrespect, low pay, lack of support keep Black teachers out of the profession

The cost of earning a credential and the disrespect they face while teaching are keeping Black teachers out of the classroom.

EdSource in your inbox!

Stay ahead of the latest developments on education in California and nationally from early childhood to college and beyond. Sign up for EdSource’s no-cost daily email.

Stay informed with our daily newsletter

The Hechinger Report

Covering Innovation & Inequality in Education

PROOF POINTS: New research review questions the evidence for special education inclusion

Jill Barshay SENIOR REPORTER

(212)... More by Jill Barshay

Letters to the Editor

At The Hechinger Report, we publish thoughtful letters from readers that contribute to the ongoing discussion about the education topics we cover. Please read our guidelines for more information. We will not consider letters that do not contain a full name and valid email address. You may submit news tips or ideas here without a full name, but not letters.

By submitting your name, you grant us permission to publish it with your letter. We will never publish your email address. You must fill out all fields to submit a letter.

re: https://hechingerreport.org/proof-ponts-new-research-review-questions-the-evidence-for-special-education-inclusion/ Ref: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cl2.1291 The effects of inclusion on academic achievement, socioemotional development and wellbeing of children with special educational needs

Jill Barshay, Hechinger Reports cc Dr. Nina Dalgaard

It is important to conduct periodic meta-analysis of topics related to public policy, funding and other aspects of education.

I disagree with the reporting by Jill Bashay regarding special education learner inclusion/exclusion.

The reason for my disagreement is that the referenced study authors report contains the authors’ data collection and meta-analysis conclusions (see below) that valid information for meta-analysis is inadequate. My read of the Dalgaard met-analysis report suggests that the two extremes – full inclusion or full exclusion – of SEN students in the ‘normal’ population may be harmful but is really unknown. Therefore, until more and better research is achieved, some logical blend of inclusion/exclusion can be designed and implemented to achieve learning and social integration objectives. My opinion comes from leading manufacturing ventures that have intentionally accommodated “SEN” adults successfully in ways that give them personal work settings along with collaborative opportunities. The emotional intelligence for diversity, equity and inclusion is, I believe, better achieved by starting in the K-12 system.

Larry Gebhardt Ph.D., Captain US Navy (Retired) Pocatello, Idaho

Data Collection and Analysis The total number of potentially relevant studies constituted 20,183 hits. A total of 94 studies met the inclusion criteria, all were non-randomised studies. The 94 studies analysed data from 19 different countries. Only 15 studies could be used in the data synthesis. Seventy-nine studies could not be used in the data synthesis as they were judged to be of critical risk of bias and, in accordance with the protocol, were excluded from the meta-analysis on the basis that they would be more likely to mislead than inform. The 15 studies came from nine different countries. Separate meta-analyses were conducted on conceptually distinct outcomes. All analyses were inverse variance weighted using random effects statistical models. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of pooled effect sizes across components of risk of bias.

Authors’ Conclusions The overall methodological quality of the included studies was low, and no experimental studies in which children were randomly assigned to intervention and control conditions were found. The 15 studies, which could be used in the data synthesis, were all, except for one, judged to be in serious risk of bias. Results of the meta-analyses do not suggest on average any sizeable positive or negative effects of inclusion on children’s academic achievement as measured by language, literacy, and math outcomes or on the overall psychosocial adjustment of children. The average point estimates favoured inclusion, though small and not statistically significant, heterogeneity was present in all analyses, and there was inconsistency in direction and magnitude of the effect sizes. This finding is similar to the results of previous meta-analyses, which include studies published before 2000, and thus although the number of studies in the current meta-analyses is limited, it can be concluded that it is very unlikely that inclusion in general increases or decreases learning and psychosocial adjustment in children with special needs. Future research should explore the effects of different kinds of inclusive education for children with different kinds of special needs, to expand the knowledge base on what works for whom.

Of course inclusion, just in general, doesn’t increase outcomes. Just like exclusion, just in general, doesn’t help anyone. So many other things have to be true. What the kids and adults are actually doing when they are being ‘included,’ matters the most. Is there one general education teacher with 25 kids and kids with disabilities are just in class receiving whole group instruction without any targeted supports? Is there a strong co-teaching model led by two content experts with most time spent in small groups? Is the special educator a content expert? If you think about what is true about a self-contained classroom that would, arguably, be better for a student, those things can be replicated within a general education setting. As a school leader, professor, former self-contained, and inclusion teacher, there is no arguing with the notion that a non-verbal student with autism is NOT categorically better off in an autism classroom than in an inclusion classroom with strong language models. The structure of the classroom and the roles of adults have to be strategically designed so that kids benefit from any classroom structure, inclusion or otherwise. I have trained hundreds of school leaders all across the country and have learned that most schools don’t know how to do inclusion well. Let’s talk about that.

I am in total agreement with Tony Barton’s comment. Jill Barshay’s article reinforced what we know: that the right set-up plays a critical role in the outcome. Therefore, since there are so few properly conducted studies, we must focus our attention to ensure that our students with disabilities are all in settings that are conducive to progress in all domains- academically, psychologically and socially. Ensuring all our educators are properly trained is the first step. I have also found that I will create the learning environment for each struggling student based on the current conditions – and include each student’s personality traits as part of the assessment done to determine where the student will truly feel best and progress most. This is similar to a general statement regarding pain. One can never compare his pain to another since pain is physiological and cannot be measured via comparison. Since the personality and individual abilities of the student, teacher, assistant and special educator all will impact the student’s outcome- it is hard to measure and determine where success is most feasible without being aware of all variables. I agree that most schools don’t know how to do inclusion well- or don’t have the staff to properly support it. This article is great in raising our collective awareness of why the Campbell Study couldn’t be more targeted and concise with its results and what we can do to support our students best.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Sign me up for the newsletter!

Submit a letter

For some students with disabilities, full inclusion may not be the answer

Media inquiries.

615-322-6397 Email

Latest Stories

Israeli ambassador to U.S., former Palestinian Authority prime minister visit Vanderbilt classroom
Campus Dining celebrates Earth Month
Faculty Senate Meeting is Thursday, April 4

Sep 16, 2022, 12:48 PM

By Jane Sevier

Proponents of full inclusion—placing students with disabilities in general classrooms for most of the school day—maintain that the more time those students spend in such classes, the better they do academically. A new paper by Vanderbilt Peabody College of education and human development researchers challenges that assumption.

Research Professor of Special Education Douglas Fuchs and his team reviewed two kinds of evidence used to support fully including students with disabilities. They examined research on programs developed for students in mainstream settings. When properly applied, they found these programs benefitted many—but not all—special-needs children. Specifically, these programs strengthened expressive language, improved peer interactions, increased task engagement and encouraged more normative school behavior for many students with disabilities. However, the researchers also found that students with more serious learning and behavior problems required an intensity of intervention not offered in many class-wide programs. The authors also described studies by others that explored the importance of general class placement regardless of the use of evidence-based interventions—a dosage (in this case, more-time-is-better) hypothesis.

Reporting their findings in “Exploring the Truth of Michael Yudin’s Claim: The More Time Students with Disabilities Spend in General Classrooms, the Better They Do Academically” ( Journal of Disability Policy Studies , 2022), the researchers found that as the number of students with disabilities placed in general classrooms increased, the gap between their reading proficiency and their grade level increased, as well.

Michael Yudin, a former assistant secretary for special education and rehabilitative services in the U.S. Department of Education, was widely known during the Obama administration as a champion of full inclusion. Students with disabilities will prosper in mainstream settings, he argued, because general educators are more likely to hold them to higher standards and to ensure that they access the same curriculum as their peers. There will, therefore, be less need for special education placements.

Fuchs and his team tracked U.S. Office of Special Education Program placement data and National Center for Education Statistics reading data for the years 1998 through 2015. The goal was to describe trends across time for these data. The students’ reading performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress did not track with the increasing amount of time they were spending in regular classrooms. (The congressionally mandated NAEP provides important information about student achievement and learning experiences in various subjects.) The researchers found little evidence that placing students with disabilities in mainstream classrooms strengthens their academic achievement.

For perspective on their findings, the authors also considered a randomized trial that examined intensive instruction in math fractions from a trained tutor outside the general classroom compared to instruction within it. That trial found that students with disabilities who received the intensive instruction outperformed those taught in the mainstream group.

While Fuchs and his colleagues note that there is no single solution to educating all students with disabilities, they argue that intensive instruction benefits many students with disabilities in ways not supported in general classrooms.

Keep Reading

‘U.S. News’ graduate school rankings: Here is how Vanderbilt graduate and professional programs placed

Peabody College researcher awarded more than $9.9 million to support students with disabilities, visual impairments

New Faculty: Meghan Burke, family advocacy and disabilities policy researcher, joins Vanderbilt Peabody College

Explore story topics.

myvu monday
Douglas Fuchs
Ideas Featured
Ideas In Action
Michael Yudin
National Center for Education Statistics
Peabody College
Peabody Reflector Fall 2023
peabody-home
special education
U.S. Office of Special Education
Vanderbilt Peabody College of education and human development

Current Issue
Journal Archive
Current Call

Search form

Follow Perspectives on Urban Education on Twitter

Inclusion Census: How Do Inclusion Rates in American Public Schools Measure Up?

Maria Silva, Doctoral Candidate, Florida International University Martha Lorena Hernández Flores, Doctoral Candidate, Florida International University Dr. Elizabeth Cramer, Professor, Florida International University

This study examines trends and variations of inclusion placement for students with disabilities (SWDs) in the United States using Florida as a state-level case study. The study investigates three main areas: placement trends in inclusion settings that exist based on disability category and race, inclusion rates in the largest counties in the state compared to the mean of inclusion in the state, and inclusion variations across all public school levels in the fourth largest, urban school district in the US. Findings suggest that although the rate of inclusion is increasing, there is a lack of equity in inclusion placement practices.

Keywords: special education, inclusion, students with disabilities, educational placement

Educational researchers have long discussed the education of students with disabilities (SWDs) in inclusive settings and related equity gaps (Artiles et al., 2006; Cole et al., 2021; McLeskey et al., 2012; Pak & Parsons, 2020; Williamson et al., 2020). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requirements have created pressure to address historical inequities in educational outcomes, achievement, and opportunities for SWDs. For example, the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA and the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015 further amplify the right for SWDs to receive a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE). Disability rights advocates argue that the LRE is always the general education setting, as the law calls for SWDs to receive special education services alongside their nondisabled peers to the most extent possible (Choi et al., 2020; Kirby, 2017). These policy reforms in special education have driven school districts to provide special education services in more inclusive settings (Author, 2014; Goodman et al., 2011; van Seen & Wilson, 2020).

However, racially, ethnically, and linguistically diverse (RELD) students in urban areas are disproportionately referred, identified, and placed in special education and are more frequently segregated and excluded from general education once placed (Blanchett et al., 2009). While inclusion percentages have increased, questions remain about the equity of inclusion placements and practices for RELD SWDs (Giangreco, 2020). Blanchett et al. (2009) argue that the issues of disproportionality in the identification and placement of SWDs at the intersection of race, culture, language, and disability and the continued segregation of these students are perpetuating educational inequities while simultaneously perpetuating White dominance. Skrtic et al. (2021) note that the role of race in disability classification has shaped disability labeling for RELD students, ultimately leading to more students from minoritized backgrounds being represented in “low-status” disability categories that are less frequently considered for inclusion.

In this article, we draw attention to factors affecting inclusion placement and discuss equity issues in urban schools that impact the placement of RELD SWDs in inclusive settings. We then use a state-level case study in Florida using descriptive statistics t- tests, General Linear Modeling (GLM), and multilevel analyses to draw attention to the inequities in inclusion placement in US public schools. We illustrate placement trends in inclusion settings that exist based on disability category and race, inclusion rates in the top 20 populated counties of a large southeastern state compared to the mean of inclusion in the state, and inclusion variations across all school levels in the fourth largest school district in the country. Although inclusion rates are increasing overall, inequities persist in inclusive practices. In our discussion, we present suggestions for future research to shift placement practices for RELD SWDs.

Background on Special Education Settings

The term “inclusion” refers to SWDs in a general education classroom for 80% or more of the school day and therefore is considered the starting point of the LRE (Grindal et al., 2019; McLeskey et al., 2012; National Council on Disability [NCD], 2018; Williamson et al., 2020). Modern-day inclusion models have branched out from the more traditional co-teaching frameworks and now include support facilitation and consultation services (Broward County Public Schools [BCPS], 2017; Friend, 2015), which may lead to the successful outcomes of SWD. Efficacious inclusion programs constitute an integrative setting where SWDs receive the same curriculum and standards-based instruction alongside students without disabilities in a general education classroom for 80% or more of the school day with support services and accommodations given by a highly-qualified special education teacher (Choi et al., 2020; Gilmour, 2018; McLeskey et al., 2012).

The reform in federal legislation and mandates have been the impetus behind states and school districts pressing for the placement of more SWDs in inclusion settings (Cole et al., 2021; Giangreco, 2020; Kirby, 2017; Williamson et al., 2020) to meet compliance requirements (Voulgarides, 2022). Giangreco (2020) confirms that in the United States, the percentage of SWDs placement in inclusion settings has increased over the past 30 years; however, Giangreco questions the equity of the placement trends. In 2019, the US Department of Education (USDOE, 2022) reported that SWDs across the country, ages 5–21, who received special education services in inclusive classrooms was 64.8%, a substantial increase from 19 years prior, in 2000, when the percentage was 46.5% (Cole et al., 2021; National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2019). In 2019, the percentage of SWDs serviced within an inclusive setting (ages 6–21) in Florida was 77% (Florida Department of Education [FLDOE], 2020), which was higher than the national percentage. Yet, disproportionality remains for inclusion placement among disability categories, race, and school levels.

Factors Affecting Inclusion Placement

The federal mandates that have been the catalyst for restructuring the decision-making in placement and service delivery for SWDs in LRE are not without flaws (Cole et al., 2021). Voulgarides (2022) argues that the compliance-based approach used to implement federal mandates has failed to meet the needs of SWDs. Various factors can affect inclusion placement, including historical systemic biases, proper interpretation of LRE, and teacher factors.

Historical Systemic Biases

Systemic biases have long existed, perpetuating segregation for SWDs, particularly those from RELD groups. Students from minoritized groups are more likely to be identified as having a disability and to receive services in a “substantially separate setting” (Grindal et al., 2019, p. 542). This is due to systemic biases that are perpetuated in placement processes. For example, Skrtic et al. (2021) analyzed a large federal longitudinal dataset. They found that minoritized students are overrepresented in what he deems as “low status” disability categories (i.e., intellectual disabilities [ID] and emotional and behavioral disorders [EBD]). This is in line with what Sullivan and Artiles (2011) termed the racial stratification of disabilities. This bears significance on the inclusion conversation, as historically, students with EBD have been the least included, with low rates of inclusion for students with ID as well (NCES, 2022).

Conversely, White students tend to be overrepresented in “higher status” disabilities such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or specific learning disabilities (SLD), categories that are most often linked to inclusive placements (NCES, 2022). This racial stratification serves as a legal justification for segregation (Sullivan & Artiles, 2011). Grindal et al.’s recent study (2019) found that regardless of income level, racial disparities persist in special education identification and placement decisions. These disparities lead to increased segregation and decreased opportunities to access high-quality instruction.

Interpreting Least Restrictive Environment

Giangreco (2020) suggests that ableism, school districts misapplying the provisions of LRE, and teachers having difficulty utilizing inclusive practices account for why schools do not place SWDs in general education classrooms. Giangreco further clarified significant misinterpretations of how to determine LRE placement, such as (a) students’ disability categories do not dictate their educational placement, (b) SWDs are not required to be functioning at or close to grade-level expectations to be placed in an inclusive setting, and (c) SWDs do not need to change or conform to predetermined standards to be placed in inclusion. Decisions about educational placement for RELD SWDs are often based on these misinterpretations.

Teacher Factors

Another factor impacting the rate of inclusion placement is the surge in inclusive education (IE) for SWDs, which requires more diversification of teacher roles (van Steen & Wilson, 2020). IE was initially defined simply as placing SWDs in mainstream programs with their nondisabled peers (Artiles et al., 2006). Through the evolution of IE, there has been a shift to change the historical segregation of SWDs by transforming school culture, implementing equity-based practices, and enhancing the achievement of all students (Artiles et al., 2006; Choi et al., 2020). Depending on teachers’ knowledge of evidence-based practices and their willingness to apply creative problem-solving skills needed to support their students, teachers may serve to hinder or expand opportunities for success for SWDs (Giangreco, 2020). For IE to have the desired effect, teachers must be willing to acclimate their pedagogy and be capable of diversifying their lesson plans, making adaptations to their classroom settings, implementing accommodations, and managing disruptive behaviors (Dev & Haynes, 2015; van Steen & Wilson, 2020). Teachers, who are key members of the Individualized Education Program team, are at the forefront of IE and are the first level of support SWDs will receive; their attitudes toward this movement can serve as an advantage or a disadvantage for students.

Relatedly, Grindal et al. (2019) argue that a teacher’s interpersonal racism, or explicit and implicit beliefs regarding the capacity of students from diverse backgrounds (e.g., RELD, SWDs, low social class) impacts student educational placement. Biased teacher perceptions at the intersection of race and disability may result in reduced teacher advocacy for inclusion placement and further exclusion of students of color and/or SWDs (Fish, 2019). Studies examining teacher attitudes toward inclusion have shown mixed findings. Using a meta-analysis, van Steen and Wilson (2020) reviewed 64 studies from all over the world regarding teacher attitudes toward inclusion. Results revealed that, in general, teachers have a positive attitude toward including SWDs within general education classrooms and showed a willingness to support inclusion. van Mieghem et al. (2020) contradicted the results from the previous study in a systematic review and meta-analysis. In their review of 26 studies, van Mieghem et al. noted that teachers generally had negative attitudes toward IE and suggested that they felt unprepared to support SWDs aptly and needed more targeted and effective professional development.

Equity in Public Education

Schools do not place all SWDs in inclusive settings at the same rate. Fish (2019) contends that schools continue to sort SWDs in ways that perpetuate racial inequities. In a comprehensive study by Grindal et al. (2019), the authors analyzed data sets for three US states to investigate differences in placement for SWDs enrolled in K–12 schools. Their findings concluded that SWDs who are Black or Hispanic were more likely to be placed in segregated classroom settings compared to SWDs who are White (Grindal et al., 2019). Proponents of IE, Gatlin and Wilson (2016) believe the overrepresentation of minority groups in special education and their placement in more restrictive settings limits their opportunities for success instead of increasing them. Author (2014) reported a shift of students identified with SLD from primarily White students to students of color. Additionally, the authors stated that urban students with an SLD are less likely to be in inclusive settings than suburban SLD students. Overall, RELD students in special education are more likely to be serviced in separate settings (Author, 2014).

Another equity gap in urban education is the aforementioned disability hierarchy, the belief that some disability categories (i.e., higher-status disabilities) are preferred over others (i.e., lower-status disabilities). This stratified status is reaffirmed by Fish (2019), whose research revealed that White students are more likely to be identified with a higher-status disability. In contrast, students of color are more often identified with a lower-status disability. Gilmour (2018) suggests that students selected for inclusion may have higher academic abilities and fewer behavioral challenges than those placed in less inclusive settings. Goodman et al. (2011) found that schools place students with mild disabilities, those working toward a standard diploma, and those assessed using statewide assessments in inclusive settings more often. These discrepancies and variations in inclusion placement based on disability category and race motivated analyzing inclusion placement in public schools.

Equity gaps and disproportionality also exist among school levels. A study conducted by McLeskey et al. (2012) analyzed the cumulative placement rates for SWDs in 1990–1991 and 2007–2008 across the United States, taking into account the 13% increase in students identified with disabilities during this period. Their analysis looked at inclusion rates at the elementary (ages 6–11) and secondary (ages 12–17) levels. Results showed that placement of elementary level SWDs in inclusive general education settings increased by approximately 59% from 1990–1991 to 2007–2008, and placement of secondary level SWDs soared by 191% (McLeskey et al., 2012). More recently, Williamson et al. (2020) studied placement trends from 1990 to 2015 and reported that inclusion placement at the elementary level increased by 66% and 235% at the secondary level. Thus, the rate at which schools place students in an inclusion setting is rising at the elementary and secondary levels; however, the secondary level has increased significantly.

Additionally, in their examination of national trends in the educational placement of SWDs from 1990 to 2015, Williamson et al. (2020) acknowledged the rapid growth of inclusion placement at the secondary level but pointed out that students in secondary schools continued to be placed in resource pullout settings more often than elementary students. Their report also found that students with SLD, other health impaired (OHI), and autism spectrum disorders (ASD) accounted for the increase in general education placement. Coincidently, students with ID and EBD accounted for decreased pullout placements and an increase in inclusion placement (McLeskey et al., 2012; Williamson et al., 2020). Multiple studies have indicated that students with SLD have garnered the highest increase in inclusion placement in public schools across the United States among all the disability groups (McLeskey et al., 2012; NCD, 2018; Williamson et al., 2020).

Our literature review indicates that inclusion rates have increased; however, the rates vary by disability category, race, and school level. Students with ID or EBD, RELD students, and those in urban settings continue to be separated and segregated from the general student population. The research questions in this article aim to break down the inclusion rates in American public schools by exploring Florida public schools’ datasets with a closer focus on Miami-Dade County Public Schools (MDCPS). In 2010, the United States Census Bureau (2021) rated the city of Miami as the fourth most populous urbanized area, and MDCPS is the fourth largest urban school district in the country, with RELD students making up 93.5% of the total population of students (MDCPS, 2020). This study aimed to examine trends and variations of inclusion placement for SWDs in urban educational settings. Using a Florida data set, we applied an inverted pyramid approach to narrow our examination of inclusion placement by initially looking at the overall state’s placement trends based on disability and race, followed by the overall mean data for inclusion placement in the largest populated counties in the state. We concluded with an analysis of placement trends in all school settings within the largest urban county in the state. We investigated the following three questions: (1) What inclusion placement trends exist for SWDs at the intersection of disability category and race? (2) How does the percentage of SWDs serviced in inclusion settings in the largest counties compare to overall state percentages? (3) What inclusion placement trends exist for SWDs at the school level (e.g., elementary, middle, high) within a large urban district?

Methodology

Data Sources

The data for this study were secondary public data obtained electronically from the FLDOE website. In 2020, Florida reported servicing 2,858,949 students in grades PK–12, with 14% being SWDs (FLDOE). As per federal and state mandates, school districts must provide accurate information regarding SWDs yearly (Gilmour, 2018). Florida’s State Education Agency (SEA) creates a yearly profile that targets 16 indicators relating to the educational environment, educational benefit, prevalence, parental involvement, and federal requirements for planning improvements in special education programs (FLDOE, 2020). Likewise, each county’s Local Education Agency (LEA) creates a profile and submits it to the state. The state then furnishes this information to the USDOE to be included in the annual report to congress that relays information on the national progress in providing IDEA services (USDOE, 2020; Williamson et al., 2020). This public information includes, but is not limited to, state assessment scores, graduation rates, environmental placement, disability categories, race/ethnic background information, and teacher qualification information.

Among the data reported by the state are child counts for the educational environments of SWDs (ages 6–21) who were provided services in Florida schools. The data was reported under IDEA Part B during the 2019–20 school year (SY; n = 377,535) by eligibility category and race. We used these data for our initial research question, investigating overall inclusion placement trends for SWDs (ages 6–21) based on disability category and race. Concerning our second research question, the Florida SEA and LEA Profiles for the 20 largest counties were examined in the following years and correspond to particular SYs as follows: 2010 Profile for the 2008–2009 SY, 2015 Profile for the 2013–2014 SY, and 2020 Profile for the 2018–2019 SY. The top 20 populated counties in Florida in descending order are Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Hillsborough, Orange, Pinellas, Duval, Lee, Polk, Brevard, Pasco, Volusia, Seminole, Sarasota, Manatee, Collier, Osceola, Lake, Marion, and St. Lucie (The Florida Legislature, 2019). The top 20 populated counties were targeted for this investigation as 91.2% of Florida’s population live in urban areas (The Florida Legislature, 2019) and therefore have a higher concentration of students.

For our third research question, we narrowed our search to investigating the largest urban school district in Florida, MDCPS (The Florida Legislature, 2019). In particular, we analyzed the educational placement setting records for all schools within MDCPS over three SYs. Urban school districts generally fall behind in inclusion rates compared to the national average (Author, 2015), as is the case for MDCPS, which reported an inclusion rate of 62% in 2019, compared to the state of Florida, which was 77% and the national average of 64.8% (FLDOE, 2020; USDOE, 2022). During the 2019–2020 SY, MDCPS reported servicing 480 traditional and charter schools with a total student enrollment of 347,069 students in grades PK – 12, 11% of whom are SWDs (FLDOE, 2020; MDCPS, 2020). The demographic breakdown of this district is as follows: White Non-Hispanic 6.5%, Black Non-Hispanic 19.5%, Hispanic 72.2%, Other 1.8%, and students on free/reduced lunch 67.8% (MDCPS, 2020). We made a public records request to the commissioner of the FLDOE in December 2020 to access information regarding the educational placement records for all public schools within this school district for the previous three SYs.

The study variables were composed of three levels: Florida state, the top 20 populated counties, and one large urban county. We manually imported data into SPSS software at the state level to calculate and provide descriptive analysis, trends, and variations in inclusion placement for SWDs in Florida. The main outcome variable in the investigation into the placement trends in inclusion settings was the SWDs (ages 6–21) serviced in the state during the 2019–2020 SY (n = 377,535). Independent variables included eligibility category and race. We extracted data from the FLDOE (2020) child count report. We disaggregated it to determine the percentages of SWDs in the state of Florida (n = 377,535) versus the percentages of students placed in inclusion settings in Florida based on eligibility category and race.

At the county level, we first looked at the total population of K–12 grade students for each of the 20 counties for each of the three years to investigate inclusion trends. We then computed the number of SWDs from the total population and the corresponding percentage of SWDs from the total population. From the number of SWDs, we calculated the percent placed in inclusion for each of the three years. To further examine trends in inclusion, we grouped the counties into counties with a relatively high population of disabilities and counties with a relatively low number of disabilities for the 2020 SY. We calculated the mean disability proportion (.1475) and used .15 as a cutting-off point for high and low disability. The nine low disability counties included: Miami-Dade, Broward, Orange, Pinellas, Lee, Polk, Collier, Osceola, and St. Lucie. The 11 high disability counties included: Palm Beach, Hillsborough, Duval, Brevard, Pasco, Volusia, Seminole, Sarasota, Manatee, Lake, and Marion.

Regarding our third research question, we analyzed data for educational placement of all SWDs in MDCPS by school level for the previous three SYs, 2017–2018, 2018–2019, and 2019–2020. The school levels were elementary (PK–5), middle (6–8), high (9–12), PK–8 centers, charter schools, and alternative settings. PK through 8 schools are institutions that educate students from pre-kindergarten up until 8th grade. Public charter schools are publicly funded schools that can serve students in grades PK–12 and typically operate under a legislative performance contract that affords them more autonomy than traditional public schools (Blazer, 2010; Hussar et al., 2020). Given that charter schools are not required to follow a specific instructional approach and have the flexibility to make their own decisions regarding budgets, class sizes, and staffing (Blazer, 2010), we decided to identify them as a separate school level. Alternative settings refer to school locations that were either juvenile detention centers, alternative education centers, specialized centers (i.e., hospital homebound), or residential centers as the student population for these more restrictive settings fluctuates throughout the SY and usually provides extensive educational services that would not correlate with IE Thus, their data may skew the results of this study.

Data Analysis

This study employed descriptive statistics t- tests as preliminary analyses and General Linear Modeling (GLM) and multilevel analyses as the primary analyses. With preliminary analyses, we examined relationships between the percentage of SWDs in inclusive settings by county with the state’s mean for each year in the study. We used t -tests and GLM to determine if there was any significant difference between the means of various groups (Howell, 2013).

Utilizing education placement data provided by FLDOE (2020) for MDCPS to investigate three SYs, 2017–2018, 2018–2019, and 2019–2020, the study conducted GLM and multilevel analysis to analyze the changes of SWDs varied by school levels. We tallied placement data within five categories: regular class, resource room, special classroom, other separate environments, and the total number of SWDs. As per FLDOE (2020), a regular class consists of SWDs being included within the general education classroom with peers without disabilities for 80% or more of the school week, resource room is inclusion for 40 – 80% of the school week, special classroom is inclusion less than 40% of the school week, and other separate environments are specialized centers, residential placements, or hospital/homebound placements. For this study, data listed within “regular class” were analyzed as full inclusion data.

First, we coded data for the educational placement of all SWDs in MDCPS by school level. For GLM, coding entailed the following 6 categories: 1 = elementary school, 2 = middle school, 3 = high school, 4 = PK–8 school, 5 = charter school, and 6 = alternative school. The study used the graphical presentations of GLM and compared the SWDs changes over three academic years. We created five dummy coded variables for multilevel analysis, and the charter school served as a reference group school. Taking advantage of the flexibility of multilevel analysis concerning statistical assumptions and applications, we interpreted multilevel outcomes for the initial gaps and growth rates (changes over three years) among different schools. A small number of schools (n < 5) serviced grades 6–12, and they were coded as middle school because that was the starting grade level for that school. We coded the small number of schools (n < 5) that serviced only grades 11–12 as high school.

Overall, inclusion rates in the state increased over the ten years reviewed (FLDOE, 2020). The overall inclusion percentage was 64% in 2010, 71% in 2015, and 76% in 2020. To examine the placement trends in inclusion settings at the intersection of disability and race, we disaggregated the data by race to compare the percentages of students enrolled in PK–12 public schools (n = 2,858,949), the percentages of SWDs, ages 6–21 (n = 377,535), and SWDs placed in inclusion settings (n = 285,955; FLDOE, 2020). Florida reported child counts for the 2019–20 SY for SWDs, ages 6–21, under the following seven racial categories: American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian, Black or African American, Hispanic/Latino, Two or More Races, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and White. The racial demographics showed that most SWDs in Florida and most students in inclusion were White, Hispanic, or Black/African American. In all seven racial categories, the percentages of overall SWDs and the percentages of students in inclusion were significantly similar. Of those three racial and ethnic categories, a visual analysis of the data (Figure 1) shows that White students appear to be identified with a disability at a rate comparable to their overall population but are more likely to be placed in inclusion. Hispanic students are less likely to be identified with a disability, but their placement in inclusion seems comparable to those identified with a disability. Meanwhile, Black students are more likely to be identified with a disability and are less likely to be placed in inclusion.

Comparison by Race for 2019-2020 School Year in Florida Schools

As delineated in Figure 2, during the 2019 – 20 SY, Florida reported child counts for SWDs, ages 6 – 21, grouped into 11 eligibility categories. Data indicated that the three main eligibility categories placed in inclusion settings were speech and language impairment (SLI; 93%), SLD (89%), and other health impairments (OHI; 78%). The three eligibility categories with the lowest inclusion rates were autism spectrum disorder (ASD; 40%), dual sensory impairment (21%), and ID (11%).

We also compared the percentage of SWDs (n = 377,535) to the percentage of students placed in inclusion (n = 285,955) by eligibility category, as depicted in Figure 2. The eligibility category with the highest rate of inclusion was SLI. Data showed that a large percentage of SWDs in Florida were identified as having SLD (42%). Of the 42% of students with SLD, 89% were placed in an inclusion setting. The state reported a small population of students in the eligibility category of deaf or hard of hearing (1%), traumatic brain injury (.1%), and visual impairments (.3%). Of these three categories, most students were serviced in inclusion settings. The lowest population category was students with dual sensory impairment (.02%); however, most were serviced in a self-contained setting, meaning inside the regular classroom for less than 40% of the school day.

Students with Disabilities in Inclusion by Eligibility Category 2019-2020 School Year

Note. The data for this figure were retrieved from the FLDOE (2020) child count by eligibility category and educational environments in Florida. Key for eligibility category: SpLaImp = Speech and/or Language Impairment, SLD = Specific Learning Disability, OHI = Other Health Impairment, VisImp = Visual Impairment, Deaf_HH = Deaf or Hard of Hearing, OrthoImp = Orthopedic Impairment, TBI = Traumatic Brain Injury, EBD = Emotional/Behavioral Disorder, ASD = Autism Spectrum Disorder, DualSens = Dual Sensory Impairment, IND = Intellectual Disability.

Next, we compared the mean percent of inclusion for Florida's 20 largest counties between 2010, 2015, and 2020 by conducting GLM. The results of the GLM show a significant linear growth pattern ( B = .149, F = 29.25, p =.00), indicating that more students were placed in inclusion settings in the 20 largest counties over the ten years. Specifically, these results demonstrate that the state's inclusion rate is increasing.

We conducted an independent-samples t-test to compare the inclusion rate for counties with a low disability rate and counties with a high disability rate for 2020 (Table 2). The nine counties identified as having low rates of disability ( M = 0.76, SD = 0.08) compared to the 11 counties identified as having high rates of disability ( M = 0.78, SD = 0.06) demonstrated no significant difference in the percent of inclusion for the test year, t (20) = -0.676, p = .51. These results suggest that the average rate of inclusion of high disability counties is not significantly different from that of low disability counties. Specifically, the results suggest that the rate at which schools placed SWDs in inclusive settings was no different in counties with a high number or low number of SWDs.

Results of Independent t-tests and Descriptive Statistics for the Year 2020, by High Disability and Low Disability Counties

We conducted three separate Pearson correlation analyses to confirm the relationship between the percentage of students in inclusion settings and the overall SWDs percentage. 2010, 2015, and 2020 showed no correlation between the percentage of students in inclusion settings and the percentage of SWDs for the years evaluated. Thus, a change in percent of SWDs had no effect on the percent of students in inclusion settings ( r = .289, p = .216 in 2010; r = .128, p = .590 in 2015; and r = .162, p = .495 in 2020).

Finally, we compiled educational placement information for SWDs from every public school within MDCPS over three SYs. We tallied placement data within five categories: regular class, resource room, special classroom, other separate environments, and the total number of SWDs. Table 3 provides the descriptive statistics for the percent of SWDs placed in inclusion settings in MDCPS for the three SYs investigated. The table shows that MDCPS's mean inclusion rate rose from 64% in 2010 to 76% in 2020.

Results of One-sample t-test and Descriptive Statistics for MDCPS Mean Percent of Inclusion and Florida’s Mean Percent of Inclusion for 2010, 2015, and 2020

Note: * indicates significant at 0.05 and ** indicates significant at 0.01

With the same measurement of the educational placement being made every year, we first conducted GLM to compare information from 2017–2018, 2018–2019, and 2019–2020 SYs (Howell, 2013). The graph in Figure 3 shows that in the 2017–2018 year, charter schools had the highest SWDs placed in an inclusion setting, followed by high school, PK–8 schools, middle schools, elementary schools, and alternative schools. While the SWDs growth (change) rate of PK–8 schools, middle schools, elementary schools, and alternative schools increased over the years, charter and high schools did not significantly increase.

Inclusion Percentages by School Level in Miami-Dade County Public Schools

The multilevel analysis results displayed a similar pattern (see Figure 3). The overall charter schools’ SWDs placed in an inclusion setting in 2017–2018 was 86.60%, and the increase rate was 1.67% per year. Compared to charter schools’ SWDs in 2017–2018, other schools had significantly lower SWDs percent: 16.45% lower in high schools, 28.18% lower in PK–8 schools, 30.38% lower in middle schools, 32.16% lower in alternative schools, and 39.79% lower in elementary schools. Elementary, middle, and PK–8 schools showed a significantly faster growth rate than charter schools’ growth rate of SWDs placed in an inclusion setting for the years examined. High schools and alternative schools’ growth rate of SWDs placed in inclusion did not change for the years examined.

The growing prevalence of inclusion across the United States is the result of federal laws and mandates calling for such action (Goodman et al., 2011; Kirby, 2017; Pak & Parsons, 2020; Voulgarides, 2022; Williamson et al., 2020). Per IDEA (2004), all states must report yearly data regarding SWDs, including educational environment placements, disability categories, and race/ethnic background information (Gilmour, 2018; Grindal et al., 2019). Taking a perspicacious look at Florida, we first examined it as a whole. Concerning inclusion placement trends for SWDs within the eligibility category, based on the child counts provided by Florida for the 2019–20 SY, we could discern that students with SLI, SLD, or OHI were more likely to be serviced within inclusion settings. These findings correlated with a study by Goodman et al. (2011), which indicated that students with mild disabilities are most often placed in inclusion classrooms. The disability categories less likely to be serviced within an inclusion setting were EBD, ASD, dual sensory impairment, and ID. These lower rates of inclusion may be attributed to these students' extensive academic and behavioral needs, as suggested by Gilmour’s (2018) finding that students with greater learning and behavioral needs are often placed in more restrictive special education settings. It is important to note that schools placed 40% of students with ASD in inclusion and 43% in self-contained settings; therefore, they have similar placement rates in those educational environments. The findings correlated with the assumption made by Kirby (2017), as well as studies carried out by McLeskey et al. (2012) and Williamson et al. (2020), that the majority of students with SLD are educated in inclusion settings. The Florida demographics for SWDs revealed that 89% of students with SLD were placed in inclusion during the 2019–20 SY (FLDOE, 2020).

As for inclusion placement trends for SWDs based on race, the Florida child counts reflected that White, Hispanic, or Black/African American students accounted for the majority of SWDs during the 2019–20 SY. Differences between students identified with a disability and those placed in inclusion were found based on race. Our findings show that White students are proportionately less likely to be identified with a disability and more likely to be placed in inclusion compared to Black students. These findings are consistent with Grindal et al.’s (2019) study, which found that racial disparities persist in special education identification and placement decisions.

Next, we examined the 20 most populated counties in Florida. Our results show that the mean percent of SWDs (ages 6–21) serviced in inclusion settings in the 20 most populated counties in Florida surpassed Florida’s overall mean inclusion rate for all three SYs. These findings show that Florida’s rate of inclusion is rising, and by extension, we can conclude that RELD’s SWDs inclusion rates are increasing as well. Our findings show that this is a positive change from Author’s 2014 study that found that RELD students in special education are more likely to be serviced in separate settings. Yet, it is essential to note that Florida’s inclusion rate of 77% for the 2019–2020 SY is still far from meeting the 2020 goal set by the SEA of 85% inclusion (FLDOE, 2020).

This study found that the average inclusion rate of high disability counties is not significantly different from that of the low disability counties. It is, however, noteworthy that of the top five populated counties in Florida, three of the five counties are grouped as low disability, counties with a relatively low number of disabilities for the 2020 SY. It would be interesting to examine the labeling practices of these counties further since, despite their population, they have fewer students with disabilities compared to other counties. Specifically, Miami-Dade, the most populated county in Florida, had the lowest inclusion rate in 2020 (M = .57), while Broward, its neighboring county and the second largest in the state, had one of the highest inclusion rates (M = .82). Although MDCPS has come a long way since first implementing a district wide inclusion policy in 2004 (Watnick & Sacks, 2006), the district still is behind national, state, and goal averages. Future research should more deeply examine MDCPS’s challenges at the intersection of poverty and racial and ethnic diversity to understand inclusion practices.

Lastly, we chose to analyze the inclusion rates for all public schools within MDCPS because of its diverse population and size. Our analysis of inclusion rates for SWDs in general education classrooms showed that secondary schools (i.e., middle and high) have higher rates than elementary schools, which complements the studies conducted by McLeskey et al. (2012) and Williamson et al. (2020). The NCES reported a considerable increase in charter school enrollment from 0.4 million to 3.1 million between 2000 and 2017 (Hussar et al., 2020); therefore, a review of their inclusion trends was incorporated in this study. In a review of traditional public and charter schools, Blazer (2010) reported that charter schools typically serve a lower proportion of SWDs. This may explain why our analysis reflected significantly higher inclusion rates in charter schools. As shown in Figure 3, our analysis also revealed significantly higher inclusion rates at PK–8 schools compared to elementary and middle schools combined. We hypothesized that these two groups would have similar inclusion rates because they serve the same grade levels. Further research into why the inclusion difference is so significant is warranted.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

This study has many limitations. This study did not investigate the actual practices that would help us understand why some counties have higher disability and inclusion rates than others. Further, this study used data reported by each county in Florida. It would be helpful to examine raw data to more clearly understand the inclusion trends. Additionally, during data analysis for our third question, we observed that most alternative schools, settings that are by default segregated as they only serve students with disabilities, did not report data despite meeting the criteria for data reporting (i.e., schools with at least 10 SWDs) and were therefore not factored into the inclusion rate of the state. Furthermore, it is worthy to note there is a discrepancy in some of the reported means of inclusion each year, which may be due to the inclusion or exclusion of alternative schools and private schools. Without accurate data from all educational settings where SWDs are serviced, we must interpret the results of our analysis with caution.

As this research shows, inclusion rates vary significantly by county. As mentioned above, we recommend a future examination of neighboring counties with similar population demographics, such as Broward and Miami-Dade counties. Broward’s inclusion rate rose above Florida’s average (77%) and closer to Florida’s goal (85%) during the 2019–2020 SY (FLDOE, 2020). Another aspect of inclusion that researchers should consider examining is the differences in inclusion rates in elementary and middle schools compared to K–8 schools. These two groups serve the same age group, yet K–8 centers consistently have a higher inclusion rate, as evidenced by this study.

Similarly, future research might further magnify disability rates and inclusion practices by looking at differences in zip codes within a highly populated, urban county. Another consideration might be investigating the inclusion practices of high-poverty neighborhoods compared to low-poverty communities. Sullivan and Artiles (2011) suggest disproportionality is often higher in low-poverty neighborhoods and that special education services are used as a method of segregation. Taking a closer look at the inclusion practices at the county, school, and zip code level can better help us understand how where SWDs live can impact their chances of being in an inclusive setting.

Furthermore, teachers can play a vital role in the success of inclusive practices. Future research should examine teachers' attitudes toward inclusion and how they view their preparedness to work with SWDs (van Steen & Wilson, 2020). It would be helpful to examine the professional development and preservice teacher training that prepares teachers to meet the needs of diverse learners. Van Mieghem et al. (2020) point out that professional development of evidence-based practices for IE is necessary for inclusion success.

Using Florida as a state-level case study, this study focused on three main areas: inclusion placement trends that exist based on disability category and race in public schools, inclusion rates in the 20 most populated counties compared to the state’s mean of inclusion, and inclusion variations across all public-school levels in one large, urban school district. Our findings show that the highly populated counties reported higher inclusion rates each year than the state. We also found that despite more students being placed in inclusion each year, inclusion rates vary by disability category, race, county, and school level and type.

Our study found that a student’s chance of being placed in inclusion depends on many factors such as their disability, race, in which county they live, their grade level, and the type of school they attend. Many students who fall on the wrong side of any of these factors are excluded and segregated from their peers, at first in an educational setting and later in society. We must further examine the placement of students in inclusion to ensure that all students have an equitable chance of being an inclusive member of our society.

Artiles, A., J., Kozleski, E. B., Dorn, S. & Christensen, C. (2006). Learning in inclusive education research: Re-mediating theory and methods with a transformative agenda. Review of Research in Education , 30 (1), 65–108. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X030001065

Author. (2014). Placement and achievement of urban Hispanic middle schoolers with specific learning disabilities. Journal of Urban Learning, Teaching, and Research , 10, 3–13. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1044123.pdf

Author. (2015). Shifting least restrictive environments in a large urban school district. Journal of Urban Learning, Teaching, and Research, 11 , 40–49.

Blanchett, W. J., Klingner J. K., Harry, B. (2009). The intersection of race, culture, language, and disability: Implications for urban education. Urban Education, 44 (4), 389–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085909338686

Blazer, C. (2010). Literature review: Research comparing charter schools and traditional public schools . Research Services Offices of Assessment, Research, and Data Analysis. Miami-Dade County Public Schools. http://drs.dadeschools.net/AdditionalReports/Charter_vs_Traditional_School.pdf

Broward County Public Schools. (2017). Support facilitation model - Effective inclusion: A collaborative process. Exceptional Learning Support Division.

Choi, J. H., McCart, A. B., & Sailor, W. (2020). Reshaping educational systems to realize the promise of inclusive education. Forum for International Research in Education , 6 (1), 8–23. https://doi.org/10.32865/fire202061179

Cole, S. M., Murphy, H. R., Frisby, M. B., Grossi, T. A., & Bolte, H. R. (2021). The relationship of special education placement and student academic outcomes. Journal of Special Education, 54 (4), 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466920925033

Dev, P., & Haynes, L. (2015). Teacher perspectives on suitable learning environments for students with disabilities: What have we learned from inclusive, resource, and self-contained classrooms? The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences: Annual Review, 9 , 54–64.

Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 [ESSA]. (2015). https://www.ed.gov/essa?src=rn

Fish, R. E. (2019). Standing out and sorting in: Exploring the role of racial composition in racial disparities in special education. American Educational Research Journal, 56 (6), 2573–2608. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219847966

Florida Department of Education. (2017). Class placement by category, ages 6–21, 2017–18 [Data set]. Bureau of Exceptional Student Education and Student Services.

Florida Department of Education. (2018). Class placement by category, ages 6–21, 2018–19 [Data set]. Bureau of Exceptional Student Education and Student Services.

Florida Department of Education. (2019). Class placement by category, ages 6–21, 2019–20 [Data set]. Bureau of Exceptional Student Education and Student Services.

Florida Department of Education. (2020). 2020 SEA profile Florida . Bureau of Exceptional Student Education and Student Services. http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php /7602/urlt/SEAProfile20.pdf

Florida Department of Education. (2020). LEA profiles archives . Bureau of Exceptional Student Education and Student Services. http://www.fldoe.org/academics/exceptional-student-edu/data/lea-profiles/

Florida Department of Education. (2020). SEA and LEA profiles 2020 . Bureau of Exceptional Student Education and Student Services. https://www.fldoe.org/academics/ exceptional-student-edu/data/

Florida Department of Education. (2020). Child count by eligibility category and educational environment, ages 6–21, 2019–20 [Data set]. http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php /7672/urlt/Ages6-21CCEligEdEnv1920.pdf

Florida Department of Education. (2020). Child count by race and educational environment, ages 6–21, 2019–20 [Data set]. https://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/ 7672/urlt/Ages6-21CCRace-Elig1920.pdf

Friend, M. (2015). Welcome to co-teaching 2.0. Educational Leadership , 73 (4), 16 – 22.

Gatlin, B. T., & Wilson, C. L. (2016). Overcoming obstacles: African American students with disabilities achieving academic success. Journal of Negro Education , 85 (2), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.85.2.0129

Giangreco, M. F. (2020). “How can a student with severe disabilities be in a fifth-grade class when he can’t do fifth-grade level work?” Misapplying the least restrictive environment. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 45( 1), 23–27. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1540796919892733

Gilmour, A. F. (2018). Has inclusion gone too far? Weighing its effects on students with disabilities, their peers, and teachers. Education Next , 8 – 16. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1191012

Goodman, J. I., Hazelkorn, M., Bucholz, J. L., Duffy, M. Lou, & Kitta, Y. (2011). Inclusion and graduation rates: What are the outcomes? Journal of Disability Policy Studies , 21 (4), 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207310394449

Grindal, T., Schifter, L. A., Schwartz, G., & Hehir, T. (2019). Racial differences in special education identification and placement: Evidence across three states. Harvard Educational Review, 89 (4), 525 – 553. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-89.4.525

Howell, D. C. (2013). Statistical methods for psychology . Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Hussar, B., Zhang, J., Hein, S., Wang, K., Roberts, A., Cui, J., Smith, M., Bullock Mann, F., Barmer, A., & Dilig, R. (2020). The condition of education 2020 (NCES 2020-144). US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2020/2020144.pdf

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 [IDEA]. (2004). https://sites.ed.gov/idea/statuteregulations/

Kirby, M. (2017). Implicit assumptions in special education policy: promoting full inclusion for students with learning disabilities. Child and Youth Care Forum , 46 (2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-016-9382-x

McLeskey, J., Landers, E., Williamson, P., & Hoppey, D. (2012). Are we moving toward educating students with disabilities in less restrictive settings? Journal of Special Education , 46 (3), 131–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466910376670

Miami-Dade County Public Schools. (2020). Statistical highlights 2019–2020: M-DCPS student membership . http://drs.dadeschools.net/StatisticalHighlights/SH1920.pdf

National Center for Education Statistics (2019). Percentage distribution of students 6 to 21 years old served under IDEA (No. 204.60). U. S. Department of Education, Digest of Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_204.60.asp

National Council on Disability (2018). IDEA series: The segregation of students with disabilities. https://ncd.gov/sites/default/files/NCD_Segregation-SWD_508.pdf

Pak, K. & Parsons, A. (2020). Equity gap for students with disabilities. Penn GSE Perspectives on Urban Education , 1 – 13. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1251597

Skrtic, T., Saatcioglu, A., & Nichols, A. (2021), disability as status competition: The role of race in classifying children. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 7 , 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/23780231211024398

Sullivan, A., & Artiles, AJ. (2011). Theorizing racial Inequity in special education: Applying structural inequity theory to disproportionality. Urban Education, 46 (6) 1526–1552. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085911416014

The Florida Legislature. (2019). The Florida legislature econographic news. Economic and Demographic News for Decision Makers , 1, 1 – 3. Office of Economic and Demographic Research. http://edr.state.fl.us/content/population-demographics/reports/econographicnews-2019v1.pdf

The Florida Legislature. (2019). Florida: An economic overview focusing on county differences . Office of Economic and Demographic Research http://edr.state.fl.us/Content /presentations/economic/EconomicOverviewFocusingonCounty%20Differences.pdf

United States Census Bureau. (2021). Urban areas facts . https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/geo-areas/urban-rural/ua-facts.html

United States Department of Education. (2022). 43rd Annual report to congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Act, 2021 . Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/43rd-arc-for-idea.pdf

van Mieghem, A., Verschueren, K., Petry, K., & Struyf, E. (2020). An analysis of research on inclusive education: A systematic search and meta review. International Journal of Inclusive Education , 24 (6), 675–689. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1482012

van Steen, T., & Wilson, C. (2020). Individual and cultural factors in teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion: A meta-analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education , 95 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103127

Voulgarides, C. K. (2022). The promises and pitfalls of mandating racial equity in special education. Phi Delta Kappan, 103 (6), 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/00317217221082804

Watnick, B., & Sacks, A. (2006). A snapshot of teacher perceptions on full inclusion in an international urban community: Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Journal of The International Association of Special Education , 7 (1), 67 – 74.

Williamson, P., Hoppey, D., McLeskey, J., Bergmann, E., & Moore, H. (2020). Trends in LRE placement rates over the past 25 years. Journal of Special Education , 53 (4), 236–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466919855052

Articles in this Volume

[tid]: building a dissertation conceptual and theoretical framework: a recent doctoral graduate narrates behind the curtain development, [tid]: family income status in early childhood and implications for remote learning, [tid]: the theater of equity, [tid]: including students with emotional and behavioral disorders: case management work protocol, [tid]: loving the questions: encouraging critical practitioner inquiry into reading instruction, [tid]: supporting the future: mentoring pre-service teachers in urban middle schools, [tid]: embracing diversity: immersing culturally responsive pedagogy in our school systems, [tid]: college promise programs: additive to student loan debt cancellation, [tid]: book review: critical race theory in education: a scholar's journey. gloria ladson-billings. teachers college press, 2021, 233 pp., [tid]: inclusion census: how do inclusion rates in american public schools measure up, [tid]: in pursuit of revolutionary rest: liberatory retooling for black women principals, [tid]: “this community is home for me”: retaining highly qualified teachers in marginalized school communities, [tid]: a conceptual proposition to if and how immigrants' volunteering influences their integration into host societies.

Report accessibility issues and request help

2020 GEM REPORT
Inclusion and education
Monitoring SDG 4
Recommendations
2020 Webpage
Press Release
RELATED PUBLICATIONS
Gender Report
Youth Report
Latin America and the Caribbean
Central and Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia
Background papers
Statistical Tables
2019 Report
2017/8 Report
2016 Report

2020 GEM Report

Plan International Australia

Full Report
2020 webpage

Introduction

The commitment of Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4) to ensure ‘inclusive and equitable quality education’ and promote ‘lifelong learning for all’ is part of the United Nations (UN) 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development pledge to leave no one behind. The agenda promises a ‘just, equitable, tolerant, open and socially inclusive world in which the needs of the most disadvantaged are met’.

Social, economic and cultural factors may complement or run counter to the achievement of equity and inclusion in education. Education offers a key entry point for inclusive societies if it sees learner diversity not as a problem but as a challenge: to identify individual talent in all shapes and forms and create conditions for it to flourish. Unfortunately, disadvantaged groups are kept out or pushed out of education systems through more or less subtle decisions leading to exclusion from curricula, irrelevant learning objectives, stereotyping in textbooks, discrimination in resource allocation and assessments, tolerance of violence and neglect of needs.

Contextual factors, such as politics, resources and culture, can make the inclusion challenge appear to vary across countries or groups. In reality, the challenge is the same, regardless of context. Education systems need to treat every learner with dignity in order to overcome barriers, raise attainment and improve learning. Systems need to stop labelling learners, a practice adopted on the pretext of easing the planning and delivery of education responses. Inclusion cannot be achieved one group at a time (Figure 1). Learners have multiple, intersecting identities. Moreover, no one characteristic is associated with any predetermined ability to learn.

FIGURE 1: The one thing we all have in common is our differences

Inclusion in education is first and foremost a process.

Inclusion is for all. Inclusive education is commonly associated with the needs of people with disabilities and the relationship between special and mainstream education. Since 1990, the struggle of people with disabilities has shaped the global perspective on inclusion in education, leading to recognition of the right to inclusive education in Article 24 of the 2006 UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). However, as General Comment No. 4 on the article recognized in 2016, inclusion is broader in scope. The same mechanisms exclude not only people with disabilities but also others on account of gender, age, location, poverty, disability, ethnicity, indigeneity, language, religion, migration or displacement status, sexual orientation or gender identity expression, incarceration, beliefs and attitudes. It is the system and context that do not take diversity and multiplicity of needs into account, as the Covid-19 pandemic has also laid bare. It is society and culture that determine rules, define normality and perceive difference as deviance. The concept of barriers to participation and learning should replace the concept of special needs.

Inclusion is a process. Inclusive education is a process contributing to achievement of the goal of social inclusion. Defining equitable education requires a distinction between ‘equality’ and ‘equity’. Equality is a state of affairs (what): a result that can be observed in inputs, outputs or outcomes. Equity is a process (how): actions aimed at ensuring equality. Defining inclusive education is more complicated because process and result are conflated. This Report argues for thinking of inclusion as a process: actions that embrace diversity and build a sense of belonging, rooted in the belief that every person has value and potential, and should be respected, regardless of their background, ability or identity. Yet inclusion is also a state of affairs, a result, which the CRPD and General Comment No. 4 stopped short of defining with precision, likely because of differing views of what the result should be.

INCLUSION IN EDUCATION AS RESULT: START WITH EDUCATION FOR ALL

Poverty and inequality are major constraints. Despite progress in reducing extreme poverty, especially in Asia, it affects 1 in 10 adults and 2 in 10 children – 5 in 10 in sub-Saharan Africa. Income inequality is growing in parts of the world or, if falling, remains unacceptably high among and within countries. Key human development outcomes are also unequally distributed. In 30 low- and middle-income countries, 41% of children under age 5 from the poorest 20% of households were malnourished, more than twice the rate of those from the richest 20%, severely compromising their opportunity to benefit from education.

Progress in education participation is stagnating. An estimated 258 million children, adolescents and youth, or 17% of the total, are not in school (Figure 2). Disparities by wealth in attendance rates are large: Among 65 low-and middle-income countries, the average gap in attendance rates between the poorest and the richest 20% of households was 9 percentage points for primary school-age children, 13 for lower secondary school-age adolescents and 27 for upper secondary school-age youth. As the poorest are more likely to repeat and leave school early, wealth gaps are even higher in completion rates: 30 percentage points for primary, 45 for lower secondary and 40 for upper secondary school completion.

Poverty affects attendance, completion and learning opportunities. In all regions except Europe and Northern America, for every 100 adolescents from the richest 20% of households, 87 from the poorest 20% attended lower secondary school and 37 completed it. Of the latter, for every 100 adolescents from the richest 20% of households, about 50 achieved minimum proficiency in reading and mathematics (Figure 3). Often, disadvantages intersect. Those most likely to be excluded from education are also disadvantaged due to language, location, gender and ethnicity. In at least 20 countries with data, hardly any poor rural young woman completed upper secondary school.

FIGURE 2: A quarter of a billion children, adolescents and youth are not in school

FIGURE 3: There are large wealth disparities in attendance, completion and learning

THE RESULTS OF INCLUSION IN EDUCATION MAY BE ELUSIVE, BUT ARE REAL, NOT ILLUSIVE

While universal access to education is a prerequisite for inclusion, there is less consensus on what else it means to achieve inclusion in education for learners with disabilities and other disadvantaged groups at risk of exclusion.

Inclusion for students with disabilities means more than placement. The CRPD focus on school placement marked a break not just with the historical tendency to exclude children with disabilities from education or to segregate them in special schools but also with the practice of putting them in separate classes for much or most of the time. Inclusion, however, involves many more changes in school support and ethos. The CRPD did not argue special schools violated the convention, but recent reports by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities increasingly point in that direction. The CRPD gave governments a free hand in the form of inclusive education, implicitly recognizing the obstacles to full inclusion. While exclusionary practices by many governments that contravene their CRPD commitments should be exposed, the limits to how flexible mainstream schools and education systems can be should also be acknowledged.

Inclusive education serves multiple objectives. There is a potential tension between the desirable goals of maximizing interaction with others (all children under the same roof and fulfilling learning potential (wherever students learn best. Other considerations include the speed with which systems can move towards the ideal and what happens during transition, and the trade-off between early needs identification and the risk of labelling and stigmatization.

Pursuing different objectives simultaneously can be complementary or conflicting. Policymakers, legislators and educators confront delicate and context-specific questions related to inclusion. They need to be aware of opposition by those invested in preserving segregated delivery but also of the potential unsustainability of rapid change, which can harm the welfare of those it is meant to serve. Including children with disabilities in mainstream schools that are not prepared, supported or accountable for achieving inclusion can intensify experiences of exclusion and provoke backlash against making schools and systems more inclusive.

There can be downsides to full inclusion. In some contexts, inclusion may inadvertently intensify pressure to conform. Group identities, practices, languages and beliefs may be devalued, jeopardized or eradicated, undercutting a sense of belonging. The right for a group to preserve its culture and the right to self-determination and self-representation are increasingly recognized. Inclusion may be resisted out of prejudice but also out of recognition that identity may be maintained and empowerment achieved only if a minority is a majority in a given area. Rather than achieve positive social engagement, in some circumstances inclusion policies may exacerbate social exclusion. Exposure to the majority may reinforce dominant prejudices, intensifying minority disadvantage. Targeting assistance can also lead to stigmatization, labelling or unwelcome forms of inclusion.

Resolving dilemmas requires meaningful participation. Inclusive education should be based on dialogue, participation and openness. While policymakers and educators should not compromise, discount or divert from the long-term ideal of inclusion, they should not override the needs and preferences of those affected. Fundamental human rights and principles provide moral and political direction for education decisions, yet fulfilling the inclusive ideal is not trivial. Delivering sufficient differentiated and individualized support requires perseverance, resilience and a long-term perspective. Moving away from education system design that suits some children and obliges others to adapt cannot easily happen by decree. Prevailing attitudes and mindsets must be challenged. Inclusive education may prove intractable, even with the best will and highest commitment. Some, therefore, argue for limiting the ambition of inclusive education, but the only way forward is to acknowledge the barriers and dismantle them.

Inclusion brings benefits. Careful planning and provision of inclusive education can deliver improvement in academic achievement, social and emotional development, self-esteem and peer acceptance. Including diverse students in mainstream classrooms and schools can prevent stigma, stereotyping, discrimination and alienation. There are also potential efficiency savings from eliminating parallel education structures and using resources more effectively in a single inclusive mainstream system. However, economic justification for inclusive education, while valuable for planning, is not sufficient. Few systems come close enough to the ideal to allow estimation of the full cost, and benefits are hard to quantify, as they extend over generations.

Inclusion is a moral imperative. Debating the benefits of inclusive education is akin to debating the benefits of human rights. Inclusion is a prerequisite for sustainable societies. It is a prerequisite for education in, and for, a democracy based on fairness, justice and equity. It provides a systematic framework for removing barriers according to the principle ‘every learner matters and matters equally’. It also counteracts education system tendencies that allow exceptions and exclusions, as when schools are evaluated along a single dimension and resource allocation is linked to their performance.

Inclusion improves learning for all students. In recent years, a learning crisis narrative has drawn attention to the majority of school-age children in low- and middle-income countries not achieving minimum proficiency in basic skills. However, this narrative may overlook dysfunctional features of education systems in the countries furthest behind, such as exclusion, elitism and inequity. It is not by accident that SDG 4 explicitly exhorts countries to ensure inclusive education. Mechanical solutions that do not address the deeper barriers of exclusion can only go so far towards improving learning outcomes. Inclusion must be the foundation of approaches to teaching and learning.

The 2020 Global Education Monitoring Report asks questions related to key policy solutions, obstacles to implementation, coordination mechanisms, financing channels and monitoring of inclusive education. To the extent possible, it examines these questions in view of change over time. However, an area as complex as inclusion has not yet been well documented on a global scale. This Report collects information on how each country, from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, addresses the challenge of inclusion in education. The information is available on a new website, PEER , which countries can use to share experiences and learn from one another, especially at the regional level, where contexts are similar. The profiles can serve as a baseline to review qualitative progress to 2030.

The Report recognizes the different contexts and challenges facing countries in providing inclusive education; the various groups at risk of being excluded from education and the barriers individual learners face, especially when characteristics intersect; and the fact that exclusion can be physical, social (in interpersonal and group relations, psychological and systemic. It addresses these challenges through seven elements in respective chapters, while a short section highlights how these challenges have played out in the context of Covid-19.

Laws and policies

Binding legal instruments and non-binding declarations express international aspirations for inclusion. The 1960 UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education and the 1990 World Declaration on Education for All, adopted in Jomtien, Thailand, called on countries to take measures to ensure ‘equality of treatment in education’ and no ‘discrimination in access to learning opportunities’ for ‘underserved groups’. The 1994 Statement and Framework for Action adopted in Salamanca, Spain, put forward the principle that all children should be at ‘the school that would be attended if the child did not have a disability’, which was endorsed as a right in 2006. These texts have influenced the national laws and policies on which progress towards inclusion hinges.

National definitions of inclusive education tend to embrace a broader scope. Analysis for this Report shows that 68% of countries define inclusive education in laws, policies, plans or strategies. Definitions that cover all marginalized groups are found in 57% of countries. In 17% of countries, the definition of inclusive education covers exclusively people with disabilities or special needs. ( PEER ).

Laws tend to target specific groups at risk of exclusion in education. The broad vision of including all learners in education is largely absent from national laws. Only 10% of countries reflected comprehensive provisions for all learners in their general or inclusive education laws. More commonly, legislation originating in education ministries concerns specific groups. Of all countries, 79% had laws referring to education for people with disabilities, 60% for linguistic minorities, 50% for gender equality and 49% for ethnic and indigenous groups. ( PEER ).

Policies tend to have a broader vision of inclusion in education. About 17% of countries have policies containing comprehensive provisions for all learners. The tendency is much stronger in less binding texts, with 75% of national education plans and strategies declaring an intention to include all disadvantaged groups. Some 67% of countries have policies on inclusion of learners with disabilities, with responsibility for these policies almost equally split between education ministries and other ministries. ( PEER )

Laws and policies differ on whether students with disabilities should be in mainstream schools. Laws in 25% of countries provide for education in separate settings, with shares exceeding 40% in Asia and in Latin America and the Caribbean. About 10% of countries mandate integration and 17% inclusion, the remainder opting for combinations of segregation and mainstreaming. Policies have shifted closer to inclusion: 5% of countries have policy provisions for education in separate settings, while 12% opt for integration and 38% for inclusion. Despite the good intentions enshrined in laws and policies, governments often do not ensure implementation.

Policies need to be consistent and coherent across ages and education levels. Access to early childhood care and education is highly inequitable, conditioned by location and socio-economic status. Quality, especially interactions, integration, and child-centredness based on play, also determines inclusion. Early identification of children’s needs is crucial to designing the right responses, but labels of difference in the name of inclusion can misfire. Disproportionately assigning some marginalized groups to special needs categories can indicate discriminatory procedures, as successful legal challenges over Roma students’ right to education demonstrate.

Preventing early school leaving requires policies on multiple fronts. Education systems face a dilemma. Grade retention appears to increase dropout, but automatic promotion requires systematic approaches to remedial support, which many countries proclaim but fail to implement. Laws and policies may not be consistent with inclusion, e.g. in countries with low child labour or marriage age thresholds. Bangladesh is among the few countries to invest extensively in second-chance programmes, which are indispensable for achieving SDG 4.

Governments are striving to make post-compulsory and adult education policies more inclusive. Technical and vocational education can facilitate labour market inclusion of vulnerable groups, notably young women and people with disabilities. Unlocking its potential requires making learning environments safer and accessible, as in Malawi. Inclusion-oriented tertiary education interventions tend to focus on encouraging access for disadvantaged groups through quotas or affordability measures. Yet only 11% of 71 countries had comprehensive equity strategies; another 11% elaborated approaches only for particular groups. Digital inclusion, especially of the elderly, is a major challenge for countries increasingly dependent on information and communication technology (ICT).

Responses to the Covid-19 crisis, which affected 1.6 billion learners, have not paid sufficient attention to including all learners. While 55% of low-income countries opted for online distance learning in primary and secondary education, only 12% of households in least developed countries have internet access at home. Even low-technology approaches cannot ensure learning continuity. Among the poorest 20% of households, just 7% owned a radio in Ethiopia and none owned a television. Overall, about 40% of low- and lower-middle-income countries have not supported learners at risk of exclusion. In France, up to 8% of students had lost contact with teachers after three weeks of lockdown.

Data on and for inclusion in education are essential. Data on inclusion can highlight gaps in education opportunities and outcomes among learner groups, identifying those at risk of being left behind and the severity of the barriers they face. Using such information, governments can develop policies for inclusion and collect further data on implementation and on less easily observed qualitative outcomes.

Formulating appropriate questions on characteristics associated with vulnerability can be sensitive. Data on education disparity at the population level, collected through censuses and surveys, raise education ministries’ awareness of disparity. However, depending on their formulation, questions on characteristics such as nationality, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation and gender identity expression can touch on sensitive personal identities, be intrusive and trigger persecution fears.

The formulation of questions on disability has improved. Agreeing to a valid measure of disability has been a long process . The UN Statistical Commission’s Washington Group on Disability Statistics proposed a short set of questions for censuses or surveys in 2006, covering critical functional domains and activities for adults. A child-specific module was then developed with UNICEF. The questions bring disability statistics in line with the social model of disability and resolve serious comparability issues. Their rate of adoption is only slowly picking up.

The evidence that emerges on disability is of higher quality but still patchy. Analysis of 14 countries taking part in the Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS) in 2017–19 and using the wider child-specific module showed a disability prevalence of 12%, ranging from 6% to 24%, as a result of high anxiety and depression rates. Across these countries, children, adolescents and youth with disabilities accounted for 15% of the out-of-school population. Relative to their peers of primary, lower secondary and upper secondary school age, those with a disability were more likely to be out of school by 1, 4 and 6 percentage points, respectively, and those with a sensory, physical or intellectual disability by 4, 7 and 11 percentage points.

Some school surveys provide deeper insights into inclusion. In the 2018 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), one in five 15-year-old students reported feeling like an outsider at school, but the share exceeded 30% in Brunei Darussalam, the Dominican Republic and the United States. In all participating education systems, students of lower socio-economic status were less likely to feel a sense of belonging. Administrative data can be leveraged to collect qualitative evidence on inclusion. New Zealand systematically monitors soft indicators at the national level, including on whether students feel cared for, safe and secure, and on their ability to establish and maintain positive relationships, respect others’ needs and show empathy. Almost half of low- and middle-income countries collect no administrative data on students with disabilities.

Data show where segregation is still taking place. In Brazil, a policy change increased the share of students with disabilities in mainstream schools from 23% in 2003 to 81% in 2015. In Asia and the Pacific, almost 80% of children with disabilities attended mainstream schools, from 3% in Kyrgyzstan to 100% in Timor-Leste and Thailand. Scattered data record schools catering to specific groups, such as girls, linguistic minorities and religious communities. Their contribution to inclusion is ambiguous: Indigenous schools, for instance, can provide an environment where traditions, cultures and experiences are respected, but they can also perpetuate marginality. School surveys such as PISA show high levels of socio-economic segregation in countries including Chile and Mexico, where half of all students would require school reassignment to achieve a uniform socio-economic mix. This type of school segregation barely changed over 2000–15.

Identification of special education needs can be contentious. Identification can inform teachers about student needs so they can target support and accommodation. Yet children could be reduced to labels by peers, teachers and administrators, which can prompt stereotyped behaviours towards labelled students and encourage a medical approach. Portugal recently legislated a non-categorical approach to determining special needs. Low expectations triggered by a label, such as having learning difficulties, can become self-fulfilling. In Europe, the share of students identified with special education needs ranged from 1% in Sweden to 20% in Scotland. Learning disability was the largest category of special needs in the United States but was unknown in Japan. Such variation is mainly explained by differences in how countries construct this category of education: Institution, funding and training requirements vary, as do policy implications.

Governance and finance

Ensuring inclusive education is not the sole responsibility of education policy actors. Integrating services can improve the way children’s needs are considered, as well as services’ quality and cost-effectiveness. Integration can be achieved when one service provider acts as a referral point for access to another. A mapping of inclusive education provision in 18 European countries, mostly with reference to students with disabilities, showed education ministries responsible for teachers, school administration and learning materials; health ministries for screening, assessment and rehabilitation services; and social protection ministries for financial aid.

Sharing responsibility does not guarantee horizontal collaboration, cooperation and coordination. Deep-rooted norms, traditions and bureaucratic working cultures hinder smooth transition away from siloed forms of service delivery. Insufficient resources may also be a factor: In Kenya, one-third of county-level Educational Assessment Resource Centres, set up to expand access to education for children with disabilities, had one officer instead of the multidisciplinary teams envisaged. Clearly defined, measurable standards outlining responsibilities are needed. Rwanda developed standards enabling inspectors to assess classroom inclusivity. In Jordan, various actors used separate standards for licensing and accrediting special education centres; the new 10-year strategy will address this issue.

Vertical integration among government tiers and support to local government are needed. Central governments must fund commitments to local governments fully and develop their capacity. A Republic of Moldova reform to move children out of mostly state boarding schools stumbled because savings were not transferred to the local government institutions and schools absorbing the children. In Nepal, a midterm evaluation of the school sector programme and the first inclusive education workshop showed that, while some central government posts were shifted as part of decentralization, local government capacity to support education service delivery was weak.

Three funding levers are important for equity and inclusion in education. First, governments may or may not compensate for relative disadvantage in allocating resources to local authorities or schools through capitation grants. Argentina’s federal government allocates block grants to provincial governments, taking rural and out-of-school populations into account. Provinces co-finance education from their revenue, whose levels vary greatly, contributing to inequality. Second, education financing policies and programmes may target students and their families in the form of cash (e.g. scholarships) and exemptions from payment (e.g. fees). About one in four countries have affirmative action programmes for access to tertiary education. Third, non-education-specific financing policies and programmes can have a large impact on education. Over the long term, conditional cash transfers in Latin America increased education attainment by between 0.5 and 1.5 years.

Financing disability-inclusive education requires additional focus. A twin-track approach to financing is recommended, complementing general mechanisms with targeted programmes. Policymakers need to define standards for services to be delivered and the costs they will cover. They need to address the challenge of expanding costs as special needs identification rates increase, and design ways to prioritize, finance and deliver targeted services for a wide range of needs. They also need to define results in a way that maintains pressure on local authorities and schools to avoid further earmarking services for children with diagnosed special needs and further segregating settings at the expense of other groups or general financing needs. Finland has been moving in this direction.

Even richer countries lack information on financing education for students with disabilities. A project mapping European countries’ financing of inclusive education found that only 5 in 18 had relevant information. There is no ideal funding mechanism, since countries vary in history, understanding of inclusive education and levels of decentralization. A few countries are moving away from multiple weights (e.g. by type of impairment), which may inflate the number of students identified with special needs, to a simple funding formula for mainstream schools. Many promote networks to share resources, facilities and capacity development opportunities.

Poorer countries often struggle to finance the shift from special to inclusive education. Some countries have increased their budgets to improve inclusion of students with disabilities. The 2018/19 Mauritius budget quadrupled the annual per capita grant for teaching aids, utilities, furniture and equipment for students with special needs.

Curricula, textbooks and assessments

Curriculum choices can promote or obstruct an inclusive and democratic society. Curricula need to reassure all groups at risk of exclusion that they are fundamental to the education project, whether in terms of content or implementation. Using different curricula of differing standards for some groups hinders inclusion and creates stigma. Yet many countries still teach students with disabilities a special curriculum, offer refugees only the curriculum of their home country to encourage repatriation, and tend to push lower achievers onto slower education tracks. Challenges arise in several contexts: internally displaced populations in Bosnia and Herzegovina; gender issues in Peru; linguistic minorities in Thailand; Burundian and Congolese refugees in the United Republic of Tanzania; indigenous peoples in Canada. In Europe, 23 in 49 countries did not address sexual orientation and gender identity expression explicitly.

Inclusive curricula need to be relevant, flexible and responsive to needs. Evidence from citizen-led assessments in Southern Asia and sub-Saharan Africa highlighted large gaps between curriculum objectives and learning outcomes. When curricula cater to more privileged students and certain types of knowledge, implementation inequality between rural and urban areas arises, as a curriculum study of primary mathematics in Uganda showed. Learning in the mother tongue is vital, especially in primary school, to avoid knowledge gaps and increase the speed of learning and comprehension. In India’s Odisha state, multilingual education covered about 1,500 primary schools and 21 tribal languages of instruction. Just 41 countries worldwide recognize sign language as an official language, of which 21 are in the European Union. In Australia, 19% of students receive adjustments to the curriculum. Curricula should not lead to dead ends in education but offer pathways for continuous education opportunities.

Textbooks can perpetuate stereotypes. Representation of ethnic, linguistic, religious and indigenous minorities in textbooks depends largely on historical and national context. Factors influencing countries’ treatment of minorities include the presence of indigenous populations; the demographic, political or economic dominance of one or more ethnic groups; the history of segregation or conflict; the conceptualization of nationhood; and the role of immigration. Textbooks may acknowledge minority groups in ways that mitigate or exacerbate the degree to which they are perceived, or perceive themselves, as ‘other’. Inappropriate images and descriptions that associate certain characteristics with particular population groups can make students with non-dominant backgrounds feel misrepresented, misunderstood, frustrated and alienated. In many countries, females are often under-represented and stereotyped. The share of females in secondary school English language textbook text and images was 44% in Indonesia, 37% in Bangladesh and 24% in Punjab province, Pakistan. Women were represented in less prestigious occupations and as introverted.

Good-quality assessments are a fundamental part of an inclusive education system. Assessments are often organized unduly narrowly, determining admission to certain schools or placement in separate school tracks, and sending conflicting signals about government commitment to inclusion. Large-scale, cross-national summative assessments, for instance, tend to exclude students with disabilities or learning difficulties. Assessment should focus on students’ tasks: how they tackle them, which ones prove difficult and how some aspects can be adapted to enable success. A shift in emphasis from high-stake summative assessments at the end of the education cycle to low-stake formative assessments over the education trajectory underpins efforts to make assessment fit for the purpose of inclusive education. Test accommodations are essential, but their validity has been questioned in that they appear to fit students to a model. The emphasis should instead be on how the assessment can support students with impairments in demonstration of their learning. In seven sub-Saharan African countries, no teacher had minimum knowledge in student assessment.

Various factors need to be aligned for inclusive curricular, textbook and assessment reforms. Capacity needs to be developed so stakeholders can work collaboratively and think strategically. Partnerships need to be in place to enable all parties to own the process and work towards the same goals. Successful attempts to make curricula, textbooks and assessments inclusive entail participatory processes during design, development and implementation.

Teachers and education support personnel

In inclusive education, all teachers should be prepared to teach all students. Inclusion cannot be realized unless teachers are agents of change, with values, knowledge and attitudes that permit every student to succeed. Teachers’ attitudes often mix commitment to the principle of inclusion with doubts about their preparedness and how ready the education system is to support them. Teachers may not be immune to social biases and stereotypes. Inclusive teaching requires teachers to be open to diversity and aware that all students learn by connecting classroom with life experiences. While many teacher education and professional learning opportunities are designed accordingly, entrenched views of some students as deficient, unable to learn or incapable mean teachers may struggle to see that each student’s learning capacity is open-ended.

Lack of preparedness for inclusive teaching may result from gaps in pedagogical knowledge. Some 25% of teachers in the 2018 Teaching and Learning International Survey reported a high need for professional development in teaching students with special needs. Across 10 francophone sub-Saharan African countries, 8% of grade 2 and 6 teachers had received in-service training in inclusive education. Overcoming the legacy of preparing different types of teachers for different types of students in separate settings is important. To be of good quality, teacher education must cover multiple aspects of inclusive teaching for all learners, from instructional techniques and classroom management to multi-professional teams and learning assessment methods, and should include follow-up support to help teachers integrate new skills into classroom practice. In Canada’s New Brunswick province, a comprehensive inclusive education policy introduced training opportunities for teachers to support students with autism spectrum disorders.

Teachers need appropriate working conditions and support to adapt teaching to student needs. In Cambodia, teachers questioned the feasibility of applying child-centred pedagogy in a context of overcrowded classrooms, scarce teaching resources and overambitious curricula. Teaching to standardized content requirements of a learning assessment can make it more difficult for teachers to adapt their practice. Cooperation among teachers in different schools can support them in addressing the challenges of diversity, especially in systems transitioning from segregation to inclusion. Sometimes such collaboration is absent even among teachers at the same school. In Sri Lanka, few teachers in mainstream classes collaborated with peers in special needs units.

A rise in support personnel accompanied the mainstreaming of students with special needs. Yet, globally, provision is lacking. Respondents to a survey of teacher unions reported that support personnel were largely absent or not available in at least 15% of countries. Classroom learning or teaching assistants can be particularly helpful. However, while their role is to supplement teachers’ work, they are often put in positions that demand much more. Increased professional expectations, accompanied by often low levels of professional development, can lead to lower-quality learning, interference with peer interaction, decreased access to competent instruction, and stigmatization. In Australia, access of students with disabilities to qualified teachers was partly impeded by the system’s overdependence on unqualified support personnel.

Teacher diversity often lags behind population diversity. This is sometimes the result of structural problems preventing members of marginalized groups from acquiring qualifications, teaching in schools once they are qualified and remaining in the profession. Systems should recognize that these teachers can bolster inclusion by offering unique insights and serving as role models to all students. In India, the share of teachers from scheduled castes, which constitute 16% of the country’s population, increased from 9% to 13% between 2005 and 2013.

Inclusion in education requires inclusive schools. School ethos – the explicit and implicit values and beliefs, as well as the interpersonal relationships, that define a school’s atmosphere – has been linked to students’ social and emotional development and well-being. The share of students in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries who felt they ‘belonged’ in school fell from 82% in 2003 to 73% in 2015 due to increasing shares of students with immigrant backgrounds and declining levels of a sense of belonging among natives.

Head teachers can foster a shared vision of inclusion. They can guide inclusive pedagogy and plan professional development activities. A cross-country study of teachers of special needs students in mainstream schools found that those who received more instructional leadership reported lower professional development needs. While head teachers’ tasks are increasingly complex, nearly one-fifth (rising to half in Croatia) had no instructional leadership training. Across 47 education systems, 15% of head teachers (rising to more than 60% in Viet Nam) reported a high need for professional development in promoting equity and diversity.

School bullying and violence cause exclusion. One-third of 11- to 15-year-olds have been bullied in school. Those perceived as differing from social norms or ideals are the most likely to be victimized, including sexual, ethnic and religious minorities, the poor and those with special needs. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex students in New Zealand were three times as likely to be bullied. In Uganda, 84% of children with disabilities versus 53% of those without experienced violence by peers or staff. Classroom management practices, guidance services and policies should identify staff responsibilities and actions to prevent and address bullying and violence. Punitive approaches should not displace student support and cultivation of a respectful atmosphere.

Schools must be safe and accessible. Transit to school, building design and sanitation facilities often violate accessibility, acceptability and adaptability principles. More than one-quarter of girls in 11 African, Asian and Latin American countries reported never or seldom feeling safe on the way to or from school. No schools in Burundi, Niger and Samoa had ‘adapted infrastructure and materials for students with disabilities’. In Slovakia, 15% of primary and 21% of lower secondary schools met such standards. Reliable comparable evidence remains elusive because countries’ standards vary and schools do not meet all elements of a standard; in addition, monitoring capacity is weak and data are not independently verified.

Accessible infrastructure often does not support all. The CRPD called for universal design to increase functionality and accommodate everyone’s needs, regardless of age, size or ability. Incorporating full-access facilities from the outset increases cost by 1%, compared with 5% or more after completion. Aid programmes helped disseminate universal design principles. Indonesian schools built with Australian support included accessible toilets, handrails and ramps; the government adopted similar measures for all new schools.

Assistive technology can determine participation or marginalization. Assistive devices refer to input technology (adapted keyboards and computer input controls, speech input, dictation software) and output technology (screen readers and magnifiers, three-dimensional printers, Braille note-takers). Alternative and augmentative communication systems replace speech. Assistive listening systems improve sound clarity and reduce background noise. Such technology improves graduation rates, self-esteem and optimism, but is often unavailable due to lack of resources or not used effectively due to lack of teacher education.

Students, parents and communities

Take marginalized students’ experiences into account. Documenting disadvantaged students’ views without singling them out is difficult. Their inclusion preferences are shown to depend on their vulnerability, type of school attended, experience at a different type of school, and the level and discreetness of specialized support. Vulnerable students in mainstream schools may appreciate separate settings for the sake of increased attention or reduced noise. Pairing students with peers with disabilities can increase acceptance and empathy, although it does not guarantee inclusion outside school.

Majority populations tend to stereotype minority and marginalized students. Negative attitudes lead to less acceptance, isolation and bullying. Syrian refugees in Turkey felt negative stereotypes led to depression, stigmatization and alienation from school. Stereotypes can lower students’ expectations and self-esteem. In Switzerland, girls internalized the view that they are less suited than boys for science, technology, engineering and mathematics, which discouraged them from pursuing degrees in these fields. Teachers can fight but also perpetuate discrimination in education. Mathematics teachers in São Paulo, Brazil, were more likely to pass white students than their equally proficient and well-behaved black classmates. Teachers in China had less favourable perceptions of rural migrant students than of their urban peers.

Parents drive but also resist inclusive education. Parents may hold discriminatory beliefs about gender, disability, ethnicity, race or religion. Some 15% in Germany and 59% in Hong Kong, China, feared that children with disabilities disturbed others’ learning. Given choice, parents wish to send their vulnerable children to schools that ensure their well-being. They need to trust mainstream schools to respond to their needs. As school becomes more demanding with age, parents of children with autism spectrum disorders may have to look for schools that better meet their needs. In Australia’s Queensland state, 37% of students in special schools had moved from mainstream schools.

Parental school choice affects inclusion and segregation. Families with choice may avoid disadvantaged local schools. In Danish cities, a seven percentage point increase in the share of migrant students was associated with a one percentage point increase in the share of natives attending private school. In Lebanon, the majority of parents favoured private schools along sectarian lines. In Malaysia, private school streams organized by ethnicity and differentiated by quality contributed to stratification, despite government measures to desegregate schools. The potential of distance and online mainstream education for inclusion notwithstanding, parental preference for self-segregation through homeschooling tests the limits of inclusive education.

Parents of children with disabilities often find themselves in a distressing situation. Parents need support in early identification and management of their children’s sleep, behaviour, nursing, comfort and care. Early intervention programmes can help them grow confident, use other support services and enrol children in mainstream schools. Mutual support programmes can provide solidarity, confidence and information. Parents with disabilities are more likely to be poor, less educated and face barriers coming to school or working with teachers. In Viet Nam, children of parents with disabilities had 16% lower attendance rates.

Civil society has been advocate and watchdog for the right to inclusive education. Organizations for people with disabilities, disabled people’s organizations, grassroots parental associations and international non-government organizations (NGOs) active in development and education monitor progress on government commitments, campaign for fulfilment of rights and defend against violations of the right to inclusive education. In Armenia, an NGO campaign resulted in a legal and budget framework for rolling out inclusive education nationally by 2025.

Civil society groups provide education services on government contract or their own initiative. These services may support groups governments do not reach (e.g. street children) or be alternatives to government services. The Ghana Inclusive Education Policy calls on NGOs to mobilize resources, advocate for increased funding, contribute to infrastructure development and engage in monitoring and evaluation. The Afghanistan government supports community-based education, which relies on local people. Yet NGO schools set up for specific groups may promote segregation rather than inclusion in education. They should align with policy and not replicate services or compete for limited funds.

Education in the other SDGs

The goals of gender equality, climate change and partnerships have large and unrealized synergies with education. A review of effective means of combating climate change ranked girls’ and women’s education and family planning sixth and seventh out of 80 solutions. The review estimated that filling the GEM Report-estimated financing gap of US$39 billion a year could yield a reduction of 51 gigatons of emissions by 2050, an ‘incalculable’ return on investment. Indigenous peoples and local communities manage at least 17% of the total carbon stored in forest lands in 52 tropical and subtropical countries, making protecting their knowledge vital. As of 2017, 102 of 195 UNESCO member states had a designated education focal point for Action for Climate Empowerment to support provision of climate change mitigation education.

While gender is a cross-cutting priority in all multi-stakeholder funding partnerships, connections between education and climate change are weaker. There has been no clear targeting from global climate finance in 2015–16 for scaling up education systems and girls’ education, for behavioural changes in food waste and diet, or for indigenous approaches to land use and management.

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Search for:

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires the U.S. Department of Education to collect certain data and submit specific reports.

Annual Report to Congress

The Department, as required by Section 664(d) of the IDEA, submits an annual report to Congress on the progress made toward the provision of a free appropriate public education to all children with disabilities and the provision of early intervention services to infants and toddlers with disabilities.

45th Annual Report to Congress (2023), Parts B and C
View past Annual Reports

State Data Collection (618 Data)

Section 618 of the IDEA requires each state to submit data about infants and toddlers who receive early-intervention services under Part C of the IDEA and children with disabilities who receive special education and related services under Part B of the IDEA.

There are 12 data collections authorized under Section 618 of the IDEA.

Under Part B:

child count
educational environments
dispute resolution
maintenance of effort reduction/ coordinated early intervening services

Under Part C:

618 Data Products Descriptions

Get 618 Data

OSEP Fast Facts

OSEP Fast Facts summarizes key facts related to specific aspects of the data collection authorized by Section 618 of the IDEA. Data presented includes that collected through child count, educational environments and settings, discipline and exiting data collections.

U.S. Department of Education Publicly Available Data Sources

The following are useful data resources that are separate from the IDEA-data collection.

Civil Rights Data Collection
Ed Data Express
Elementary/Secondary Information Systems
English Learners (EL)

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Eur Psychiatry
v.64(Suppl 1); 2021 Apr

Children with intellectual disabilities: Support in inclusive practice

Y. afanasyeva.

1 Institute Of Special Education And Psychology Institute Of System Projects Institute Of Lifelong Learning Directorate Of Educational Programs Institute Of Education Content, Methods And Technology, Moscow City University, Moscow, Russian Federation

M. Bratkova

2 Department Of Rehabilitation, Clinical and Research Institute of Emergency Pediatric Surgery and Trauma (CRIEPST), Moscow, Russian Federation

3 Psychiatric Research Group, N.N.Burdenko National Medical Research Center of Neurosurgery, Moscow, Russian Federation

Introduction

The inclusion process allows children with special educational needs to be included in a normative environment. A large group consists of children with intellectual disabilities and behavioral disorders, hey need medical and pedagogical rehabilitation due to their low learning ability, neurotic disorders, and mental distortion.

Study of psychophysical characteristics of children with intellectual disability and behavioral disorders.

140 children with intellectual disabilities who have impairments in the neuro-psychological sphere (2017-2020 г.г.). Methods: medical and pedagogical, observation, examination, assessment.

Variants of the child’s psychophysical development: Option 1. (75%): children with a predominance of violations in behavior, emotional and volitional sphere. There is aggressiveness, inconsistency and impulsiveness of actions, lack of distance with an adult, and difficulties in complying with accepted norms and rules. Option 2 (25%): children with the following manifestations: timidity, tearfulness, distrust, fears, lack of initiative. All children have difficulty sleeping, eating disorders, and frequent psychosomatic illnesses.

Conclusions

Children with intellectual disabilities in an inclusive practice need comprehensive assistance, taking into account different variants of their psychophysical characteristics. The studied children were found to have neurotic and neurosis-like disorders, as well as pathological personality development. All children have: low performance, lability of the nervous system, lack of voluntary regulation, impaired activity, learning difficulties. There are behavioral and mental disorders that require medical, psychological and pedagogical rehabilitation.

IMAGES

Inclusive Education
Inclusive Education
NAEP Inclusion
Inclusion Infographics
Inclusive Education Infographic
What Is Inclusion in Education? An Overview

VIDEO

Inclusion in Education
How to Write Universal Design (UDL) for Learning into the IEP
Special Education Inclusion at Trailblazer
SSEPTSA General Meeting 04.2023
Inclusive education|Inclusion|Integration|Diversity|Ctet|dsssb|Mainstream education|Career glow|PRT|
Awe and Wonder S3 E9 Chris Bugaj

COMMENTS

COE
In 2021-22, the number of students ages 3-21 who received special education and/or related services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was 7.3 million, or the equivalent of 15 percent of all public school students. ... Data on special education and/or related services by sex were available for all students ages 3 ...
PDF Students With Disabilities
Columbia, data limitations result in inclusion of a small (but unknown) number of students from other jurisdictions. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. ... Data on special education services for males and females are available only for school-age students, 3. rather than students ages 3-21. Among those school-age students
What federal education data shows about students with disabilities in
About two-thirds of disabled students (65%) are male, while 34% are female, according to data from the 2021-22 school year. Overall student enrollment is about evenly split between boys and girls. Research has shown that decisions about whether to recommend a student for special education may be influenced by their school's socioeconomic ...
Special Education: Definition, Statistics, and Trends
A majority of special education students—66.5 percent of those ages 6-21 and 5-year-olds in kindergarten—spend 80 percent or more of their time in regular education classes, according to 2021 ...
Data on inclusion for students with disabilities
The inclusion score is calculated based on reported rates of how much time students with disabilities spend in regular classrooms, compared to the other districts in the state.. Small districts have less than 500 students with IEPs.Large districts have 500 or more.. Data is from the 2021-22 school year (unless otherwise noted) and comes from the Oregon Department of Education.
Now is the time for schools to invest in special-education inclusion
Shift special education staff into general education classrooms to support targeted group sizes. ... and there are no significant data on the effects of inclusion models on neurotypical peers. Does the author of this piece have data showing results that support her claims? Also, what do the teachers in this program have to say about it, in the ...
PDF Special Education at a Crossroads: Ensuring Equity and Inclusion for
Special Education at a Crossroads: Ensuring Equity and Inclusion for Students with Disabilities. MARCH 2022. Lanya McKittrick Katy Bateman Sean Gill. Introduction. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the delivery of educational and therapeutic services for students with disabilities across the world, creating new obstacles for students, parents ...
PROOF POINTS: New research review questions the evidence for special
Schools have embraced inclusion. According to the most recent data from 2020-21 school year, two thirds of the 7 million students with disabilities who receive special education services spent 80 percent or more of their time in traditional classrooms. Separation is less common today; only one out of every eight students with disabilities was ...
For some students with disabilities, full inclusion may not be the
Fuchs and his team tracked U.S. Office of Special Education Program placement data and National Center for Education Statistics reading data for the years 1998 through 2015. The goal was to ...
Inclusion Census: How Do Inclusion Rates in American Public Schools
Keywords: special education, inclusion, ... For this study, data listed within "regular class" were analyzed as full inclusion data. First, we coded data for the educational placement of all SWDs in MDCPS by school level. For GLM, coding entailed the following 6 categories: 1 = elementary school, 2 = middle school, 3 = high school, 4 = PK ...
Full article: Understanding inclusive education
Introduction. The general focus on school inclusion can be traced back to The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education that was crafted in 1994 (UNESCO Citation 1994).The Salamanca document features normative principles for inclusion that recognise institutions that include every student, highlight diversity as an asset, support learning, and respond to ...
Inclusion and education
Data on and for inclusion in education are essential. ... Poorer countries often struggle to finance the shift from special to inclusive education. Some countries have increased their budgets to improve inclusion of students with disabilities. The 2018/19 Mauritius budget quadrupled the annual per capita grant for teaching aids, utilities ...
Data
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires the U.S. Department of Education to collect certain data and submit specific reports. Annual Report to Congress The Department, as required by Section 664(d) of the IDEA, submits an annual report to Congress on the progress made toward the provision of a free appropriate public education to all children with...
Children with intellectual disabilities: Support in inclusive practice
The inclusion process allows children with special educational needs to be included in a normative environment. A large group consists of children with intellectual disabilities and behavioral disorders, hey need medical and pedagogical rehabilitation due to their low learning ability, neurotic disorders, and mental distortion.
Systematic Review on Chinese Special Education and Inclusive Education
Special education development entered a new historical stage at the beginning of the twenty-first century, changing from the pursuit of quantity (enrollment) to an emphasis on quality education, with curriculum construction and reform considered key to promoting inclusive education and the integration of the regular and special education ...
Sustainability
One of the significant factors in the sustainability of education is the development of inclusive education. An inclusive educational space implies openness and accessibility of education for students, regardless of their educational needs. Inclusive education also means a partnership between students and teachers. A teacher is a living person whose socio-emotional skills and professional ...
PDF Students With Disabilities
Columbia, data limitations result in inclusion of a small (but unknown) number of students from other jurisdictions. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. ... Separate data on special education services for males and females are available only for students ages 6-21, 4 rather than ages 3-21. Among those 6- to 21-year-old ...
The Current State of Special Needs Education in Russia: Inclusive
Keywords: Inclusion, Inclusive Education, Special Education, Russia 1. Theoretical Perspective Integration of children with special needs in educational institutions is a logical stage in the development of special inclusive education in any country of the world. It is the process that involves all advanced countries, including Russia.
PDF Special Education in BRICS: A Comparative Overview
Keywords: BRICS, inclusive education, special education Introduction The main purpose of any education system is to support future citizens in obtaining a bright future and to provide the necessary skills to be well-educated in a ... countries is compared based on descriptive data. The significance of this comparative study lies in the ...

Regions & Countries

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Race and LGBTQ Issues in K-12 Schools

Special Education: Definition, Statistics, and Trends

Definition of special education

What is an IEP?

How many students are in special education?

Share of special education students by state

Has the number of students served in special education increased?

Special education statistics by race

Are schools overidentifying minority students with disabilities?

What are the demographics of special education teachers?

Inclusion statistics

Learning disabilities statistics

Autism statistics

Which disability categories have grown the most?

How much money is spent on special education by the federal government?

What is the student-teacher ratio for special education students?

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Sign Up & Sign In

How included are students with disabilities in your local schools?

Black teachers: How to recruit them and make them stay

Now is the time for schools to invest in special-education inclusion models that benefit all students

Kimberly Berry

Comments (3)

Comments Policy

Karina Villalona 2 years ago 2 years ago

Craig 2 years ago 2 years ago

Monica Saraiya 2 years ago 2 years ago

EdSource Special Reports

Bias, extra work and feelings of isolation: 5 Black teachers tell their stories

Bills address sexual harassment in California public colleges

Disrespect, low pay, lack of support keep Black teachers out of the profession

EdSource in your inbox!

Stay informed with our daily newsletter

PROOF POINTS: New research review questions the evidence for special education inclusion

Share this:

Related articles

Jill Barshay SENIOR REPORTER

Letters to the Editor

Submit a letter

For some students with disabilities, full inclusion may not be the answer

Latest Stories

Keep Reading

‘U.S. News’ graduate school rankings: Here is how Vanderbilt graduate and professional programs placed

Peabody College researcher awarded more than $9.9 million to support students with disabilities, visual impairments

New Faculty: Meghan Burke, family advocacy and disabilities policy researcher, joins Vanderbilt Peabody College

Search form

Inclusion Census: How Do Inclusion Rates in American Public Schools Measure Up?

Articles in this Volume

Introduction

FIGURE 1: The one thing we all have in common is our differences

INCLUSION IN EDUCATION AS RESULT: START WITH EDUCATION FOR ALL

FIGURE 2: A quarter of a billion children, adolescents and youth are not in school

FIGURE 3: There are large wealth disparities in attendance, completion and learning

THE RESULTS OF INCLUSION IN EDUCATION MAY BE ELUSIVE, BUT ARE REAL, NOT ILLUSIVE

Laws and policies

Governance and finance

Curricula, textbooks and assessments

Teachers and education support personnel

Students, parents and communities

Education in the other SDGs

Annual Report to Congress

State Data Collection (618 Data)

618 Data Products Descriptions

OSEP Fast Facts

U.S. Department of Education Publicly Available Data Sources

Children with intellectual disabilities: Support in inclusive practice

M. Bratkova

Introduction

Conclusions

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS