Introduction
Countries in Central and Eastern Europe are currently experiencing dramatic changes in the way they
educate children and youth with disabilities and from other diverse backgrounds. The influence of
international legislation (e.g. the Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, CRPD, 2009)
and related litigation, actions of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as well as the changes in the
attitudes of the general population due to globalization have put pressure on deinstitutionalization
and the promotion of inclusion in both national and local education and social welfare systems. For
many of the countries in the region, this means shedding the old model of disability, handicap and
“otherness” known as defectology (Vygotsky, 1993) in favor of social and academic models of inclusion
(Florian & Becirevic, 2011). As a result of these complex sets of socio-political factors, countries in the
region have enacted policies and are beginning to implement inclusive approaches to education with
the goal of shifting societal and educational attitudes, resources, strategies and supports for children
and youth with disabilities and from other diverse backgrounds (e.g. Roma) away from special schools
and other segregated settings to general education schools and classrooms.
In the Czech Republic (C.R.), the shift in policy and practices currently taking place has been motivated
by multiple forces. Change within educational and human services systems is occurring due to both
international legislation (e.g., C.R. ratification of the Convention of the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities, CRPD, 2009) and litigation (e.g., the decision of the European Court of Human Rights that
acknowledges that the C.R. has violated the CRPD by failing to provide fair educational opportunities
to Roma children in the case of D.H. and others vs. Czech Republic in 2007) (Devroye, 2009). Despite
numerous opposing voices, these international forces had a significant impact on the signing of the
new Czech Decree on inclusive education (IE) in 2016 (Sirovátka, 2016), as well as on the Education
Strategy 2020 with its key goal of reducing education inequality in the country. The content and
directives of these documents have prompted much-needed dialogue at the government, university
and public school levels with respect to both operational definitions of inclusive education (IE) and
inclusion and also to implementation of effective inclusive approaches and programs.
To aid in the planning and development of inclusive education practices in the C.R. and other countries
in the region, this paper first addresses the context of IE from its historical underpinnings in the U.S. It
then outlines the critical and universal components of IE; it further reviews the social and academic
impact of IE on children and youth with and without disabilities. The focus of the paper is on providing
information related to building the infrastructure needed for the implementation of IE with a high
degree of fidelity.
2
History of Inclusive Education in the United States
The history and geography of the United States (U.S.) and the Czech Republic (C.R.) might be very
different, but the need to find effective ways of including students with disabilities and from other
diverse backgrounds in regular education follows the same basic principles of the right of education
for all. Inclusive education in the U.S. has a grassroots history. It began with the education rights
movement in the 1950s, gained traction through the civil rights movement in the 1960s and continued
with the parent advocacy and disability rights movements for children and youth of color and with
disabilities in the 1980s. Advocates and self-advocates representing these groups successfully lobbied
for federal legislation with the resulting passage of the Education for Handicapped Children Act (1975)
and its successor, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) most recently amended
in 2004. This legislation mandates a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) for all children,
regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or ability (Martin, Martin, & Terman,
1996). Although arguments have persisted for years with respect to a precise operational definition of
“appropriate” and the term is interpreted inconsistently across different states in the U.S., this
50
Abery, Tichá, & Kincade / Moving toward an inclusive education system…
legislation paved the way for students with disabilities in the U.S. to gain access to general education
classrooms.
Initial interpretation of the FAPE clause in P.L. 94-142 rarely focused on the inclusion of students with
disabilities in general education settings. Instead, understanding of the term “appropriate” focused on
implementation of a second mandate associated with the Education for All Handicapped Children’s Act
and later IDEA: education in the least restrictive environment principle (LRE). The LRE principle refers
to the legislative mandate that stipulates that although full inclusion is not required for all students,
children with disabilities need to be educated in settings that are as minimally restrictive as possible
and resemble the general education environment to the greatest extent possible – as long as their
educational needs can be met. In addition, this aspect of the legislation stipulated that removal of a
student from a general education setting could only occur when absolutely necessary, taking into
consideration its academic and non-academic (i.e. social ) benefit to the student, the cost of
instruction, impact on the classroom and prior services (Sacramento City School District v. Rachel H,
1994).
Within various state legislatures in the U.S., the terms inclusion, integration, and mainstreaming are
often confused due to differing views with respect to the goals of and philosophy underlying inclusion.
Mainstreaming and integration typically refers to the physical placement of students with disabilities
in general education classes for a portion of the school day without due consideration of providing the
supports necessary optimally to facilitate learning. The home base of mainstreamed students most
often remains a special education program. In a truly inclusive school, however, a student’s home base
is the general education classroom with the necessary social and instructional supports provided to
facilitate optimal educational outcomes. Minimal services (e.g. speech therapy or occupational
therapy) are provided outside of the general classroom and needed supports are brought to the
student rather than the student being brought to the supports. This indirect service model features
special education staff working collaboratively in a consultative mode with general education teachers,
the latter responsible for providing the majority of instruction and support.
Due to the decentralized nature of education in the U.S. and the wide variety of definitions and
perspectives on inclusion, for many years general educators received little or no preparation to
effectively address the needs of these children with disabilities and other learning needs in the regular
education context. Instead, such students were viewed as the primary responsibility of special
education staff. This resulted in a situation in which the physical integration of students with disabilities
in schools was mistakenly viewed as ”inclusion” and viewed as sufficient to meet federal guidelines in
the U.S. (Mittler, 2000; Opretti & Belalcazar, 2008). In this context, children and youth with disabilities
were physically integrated into general education classrooms and worked alongside their non-disabled
peers, but all too often were not provided with the necessary supports to make adequate progress
academically and/or socially. As Mittler (2000) suggests, the terms integration and inclusion (though
often used interchangeably) are quite different and result, quantitatively and qualitatively, in dissimilar
outcomes.
Over the course of the past 25 years, at least partially as a result of the Regular Education Initiative
(REI), greater emphasis has been placed on preparing general education teachers for including children
with disabilities in their classrooms and ending the exclusivity of the special education system
(Stainback & Stainback, 1984). In the early 2000s, an additional push for including students with
disabilities in regular education occurred in conjunction with the passage of the No Child Left Behind
Act (NCLB, 2001). This federal legislation mandated that all students, regardless of their disability, have
access to the general education curriculum, be taught according to the general or alternate education
standards (depending on the level of their disability) and have their educational progress assessed
through the use of regular or alternate standardized assessments. In late 2015, the NCLB legislation
was replaced by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015). The ESSA focuses on increasing the
accountability of U.S. states with respect to the education of students from traditionally underserved
populations and/or attending low-performing schools.
51
Abery, Tichá, & Kincade / Moving toward an inclusive education system…
In response to federal educational legislation, the effective advocacy of self-advocates and parent
groups and much litigation in both state and federal courts, a variety of approaches and programs have
been developed to promote IE in U.S. public schools. These approaches have been developed and
implemented in spite of considerable disagreement among educators, parent groups and persons with
disabilities themselves about the most appropriate operational definitions of inclusion and inclusive
education.
Within the U.S., those most supportive of IE view it as a fundamental set of values and practices
intended to ensure an effective and meaningful education for all students regardless of their
educational needs. However, as Giangreco (2011, 2003) has noted, inclusive education in the U.S. has
continued to be a source of considerable controversy. This has occurred both because of
unsubstantiated fears based on opinion rather than an understanding of the results of research
undertaken in the area and also (as a result) because of anxiety among educators about the process of
change needed within the educational system in order for effective implement the fundamental
principles and supports associated with a truly inclusive approach to education. In spite of federal
mandates, there remains much disagreement about what inclusion entails, for which groups of
students IE is applicable and what are the most effective practices to support inclusion – not only
during the school years, but throughout a person’s life.
3
What is Inclusive Education?
Prior to discussing practices intended to support the inclusion of children and youth from diverse
groups, it is necessary to more fully explore operational definitions of IE. First and foremost, inclusion
and IE are philosophies based on a value system that aims to maximize the full participation of all
persons in society and education by minimizing exclusionary and discriminatory practices
(Booth, 2005). Viewed in this light, IE is not limited to the inclusion of persons with disabilities, but
rather, focuses on the inclusion of all students regardless of race, ethnicity, disability, gender, sexual
orientation, language, socioeconomic status or any other aspect of identity that might be perceived by
others as “different.”
The definition and practice of inclusive education varies significantly not only between cultures and
educational systems but also within cultures and educational systems (Dyson, 1999). In the U.S., for
instance, inclusive classrooms and schools in one state may look quite different than those in others.
What one educator views as an inclusive educational context may be seen by another as quite
restrictive. Even within a more limited system (e.g., within a school district or even a school), the
interpretation of an inclusive educational environment may be quite different. This is most often a by-
product of there currently being no universal definition of inclusion (Booth, Ainscow, & Dyson, 2006).
Giangreco and colleagues (Giangreco, 2011; 2003; Giangreco & Suter, 2015) have provided what we
believe is one of the most comprehensive conceptualizations of IE that has been applied across multi-
cultural contexts. The following, according to Giangreco and colleagues, are seven basic characteristics
of truly IE environments:
1. All students are fully welcomed and provided with appropriate, individualized supports in the
schools they would be attending if they did not have disabilities;
2. Children receive their education in classes in which the proportion of students with and without
disabilities is proportional to the local incidence of disability (in the U.S. this amounts to
approximately 10%–12% of children within a school or classroom);
3. Students receive their education with peers of the same age and in the same groupings, as do
children without disabilities;
4. Children and youth of all levels of ability are provided with appropriate supports and
accommodations so that they can actively take part in meaningful and shared educational
52
Abery, Tichá, & Kincade / Moving toward an inclusive education system…
experiences as part of heterogeneous groups with established learning outcomes which are
unique to the abilities of each student;
5. The education of children with disabilities takes place in settings frequented by people without
disabilities (e.g., regular education classrooms; inclusive work settings);
6. The focus of education is on the attainment of a set of individualized outcomes meaningful and
culturally appropriate to both the student and his or her family that strike a balance between
the academic and social; and
7. Students experience environments with these characteristics on an ongoing basis.
4
Current State of Inclusive Education in the U.S.
As IE has gained a foothold in the U.S., attitudes regarding the viability of the approach have improved,
but it has yet to gain universal acceptance among teachers, educational administrators and a
surprisingly large number of parents, especially when one considers the support (or lack thereof) for
full as opposed to partial inclusion. Full inclusion, as defined by advocates of the approach, entails the
situation in which students receive all educational services within the general education classroom,
including their special education and related services, so that they are not removed from that
environment. Partial inclusion, on the other hand, exists when students spend the majority of the day
in regular education settings, but are removed when necessary, so that they can receive needed special
education services.
Although many schools in the U.S. make the claim that they are inclusive, a closer look often indicates
that this is only partially true. Estimates provided by the National Center for Education Statistics (2016)
indicate that in 2014, 95% of 6 to 21-year-old students with disabilities were served in regular schools;
3% in separate schools for students with disabilities; 1% placed in regular private schools by their
parents; and less than 1% served in residential facilities, receiving homebound instruction, education
within a hospital or correctional facility. Focusing on students attending typical public schools,
approximately 61% spent 80% or more of their time in regular classroom environments. These
statistics, however, vary tremendously by state, disability type and intensity of support. Compared to
students with specific learning disabilities (64.7%) or who experienced speech and language
impairments (86.9%), significantly fewer students with intellectual disabilities (16.5%) spent the large
majority of their school day in a general education classroom setting. The reader is reminded that these
statistics solely reflect the physical integration aspect of inclusive education. They fail to take into
consideration the degree to which students with disabilities are academically or instructionally
included and able effectively to access their school’s curriculum at an age and grade appropriate level
as well as socially and psychologically included in their school and classroom, i.e. considered by their
peers to be members of the social group, as well as included and welcomed within their communities.
These uneven results are due to a number of factors. One of the most critical of these is that inclusion,
be it full or partial, is not mandated in the U.S. Instead, the principle of the Least Restrictive
Environment (LRE) serves as a legal guideline for free and appropriate public education (FAPE) of
students with disabilities alongside their typically developing peers to the maximum extent possible
with access to the general education curriculum (IDEA, 2004). The LRE, however, has been criticized
over the years; the most scathing critique was offered by Taylor (1982; 2004) who suggests that in
practical terms, the LRE principle has been represented in terms of a continuum of services ranging
from the most to least restrictive alternative. Taylor, and many persons who support full inclusion,
argue that the LRE principle: (1) legitimizes restrictive environments in that it implies that there are
circumstances under which the most restrictive environment would be appropriate; as long as services
are provided according to the LRE principle, he argues that some children, typically those with intensive
special education needs, will end up in restrictive environments; (2) confuses segregation and
integration with intensity of services; (3) includes the implicit assumption that people with disabilities
53
Abery, Tichá, & Kincade / Moving toward an inclusive education system…
must earn the right to be educated within inclusive settings; (4) supports the primacy of professional
versus family and student decision making; (5) sanctions infringements of the rights and liberties of
persons from diverse groups, including those with disabilities; (6) implies that people must move as
they develop and change; and (7) directs attention to the physical settings in which children receive
their education, rather than focusing on the extent to which they receive the services and supports
they need to be meaningfully included in the school and community. Truly inclusive education reaches
far beyond these basic principles of physical integration to ensure meaningful inclusion at social,
psychological and academic/instructional levels to foster the improvement in student social and
academic outcomes.
Implementation of IE is a multi-step process that requires comprehensive planning at a systems level.
This includes assessment of whether a school, school district or other system possesses the
infrastructure necessary for successful implementation, and the active involvement of teachers,
students, parents and the broader community in the planning, implementation and evaluation process
(Brock, Biggs, Carter, Cattey, & Raley, 2016; Srivastava, Boer, & Pijl, 2015). All too often, however, this planning process is shortchanged at the local level. This is especially true when the push for IE
originates at higher levels of government from individuals who have not had the opportunity to
understand the local context. Adequate infrastructure improves access to education for all children.
Given negative cultural practices and poverty in many countries, however, infrastructure
improvements alone are necessary, but not sufficient to improve access, equity, and inclusion of
marginalized groups including children with disabilities (Raynor, Sumra, & Unterhalter, 2007). Having
adequate resources to provide supports necessary for success for children with additional educational
needs does not in itself guarantee successful inclusion in the educational or societal context. One must
also consider community attitudes, values and culture. As Polat (2011) suggests, these can be as much
or more of a barrier to the successful implementation of inclusive practices as a lack of basic
educational resources.
5
What Does the Research on Inclusive Education Tell Us?
Since the initial passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children’s Act (1975), a plethora of
research has been undertaken that has focused on: the impact of IE on the academic outcomes of
students with and without disabilities, the levels of social and psychological inclusion experienced by
children with disabilities and the attitudes towards diversity on the part of their non-disabled peers.
Research efforts have also focused on a number of variables that serve as a challenge to the effective
implementation of IE programs including teacher, parent and peer attitudes regarding the inclusion of
diverse groups, as the impact of teacher and community attitudes and resources.
Academic Outcomes
Over 25 years of research on the outcomes of students with and without disabilities at both the
elementary and secondary levels suggests neither adverse nor positive academic impact of IE (Cole,
Waldron, & Majd, 2004; Farrell, 2000; Hunt, Staub, Alwell, & Goetz, 1994; Lindsay, 2007; Markussen,
2004; Myklebust, 2002; Obrusnikova, Valkova, & Block, 2003; Rankin et al., 1999; Rea, McLaughlan, &
Walther-Thomas, 2002). Such research has included measures of gains in academic attainment over a
wide range of curricular areas, including math, literacy, science and physical education. A large number
of studies (e.g., Farrell, Dyson, Polat, Hutcheson, & Gallannaugh, 2007) indicate no relationship
between academic achievement and inclusion at the district level for students without disabilities and
a small relationship at the school level between academic achievement and inclusion. Two studies
suggest that when students without disabilities are educated alongside peers with disabilities, they
slightly outperform those in non-inclusive settings in math & literacy (Saint-Laurent et al., 1998). In a
longitudinal study, Peetsma, Vergeer, Roeleveld and Karsten (2001) found that while there were no
initial differences in the academic progress of students with and without mild disabilities even after
54
Abery, Tichá, & Kincade / Moving toward an inclusive education system…
two years, by the four-year mark students educated in inclusive settings had made significantly greater
academic progress than their matched pairs in special schools. These results appear to hold for studies
undertaken in the U.S as well as in other developed countries. Szumski and Karwowski (2014), for
example, studied the impact of inclusive education in Poland on almost 900 students with mild
intellectual disability. Students from integrative and mainstream schools achieved significantly higher
scores on a school-based assessment of academic achievement than pupils from special schools.
Several older reviews of inclusive education undertaken in the 1980s (e.g. Madden & Slavin, 1983) and
1990s (e.g. Baker, Wang, & Walberg, 1994; Hegarty, 1993; Sebba & Sachdev, 1997) corroborate the findings cited above. Baker, Wang and Walberg (1994) reviewed several meta-analyses of the impact
of IE and found positive but generally small effect sizes, the highest being for academic achievement.
In a meta-analysis focused on the impact of IE conducted by Howes and colleagues (Howes, Farrell,
Kaplan, & Moss, 2003), 93% of studies on the impact of inclusive education at the elementary level
indicated neutral or positive outcomes. A somewhat higher proportion of outcomes (30%) in
secondary education suggested a negative impact of placing students with disabilities in general
education classes. However, Carter and Hughes (2006) and Copeland et al. (2002, 2004) found that students without disabilities in this older group benefited from inclusion, developing more positive
attitudes toward students with disabilities.
Although the impact of IE on the academic achievement of children with mild disabilities has been
thoroughly investigated, this is not the case for children with intellectual disabilities (ID), especially
those with more substantial support needs (Bouck, 2007; Freeman & Alkin, 2000; Hunt & McDonnell,
2009). Of nine studies undertaken prior to 2000, Freeman and Alkin (2000) found no significant difference between the academic achievement of students with ID educated with segregated and
inclusive classrooms. The authors did observe, however, that the greater the amount of time spent in
an inclusive classroom, the more positive the results. Laws, Byrne and Buckley (2000) found that on
the other hand children with ID in general education classrooms achieved significantly higher scores in
vocabulary and grammar comprehension as well as a greater percentage in developed reading skills.
More recently, Dessemontet, Bless and Morin (2012) found that included children with ID made slightly
more progress in literacy skills than children attending special schools. No differences were found
between the progress of the two groups in mathematics or adaptive behavior.
As numerous authors suggest, for students with the most significant support needs, there are skills
beyond the academic (i.e., adaptive skills) that play a crucial role in maximizing life-long inclusion and
independence (Dixon, 2007; Kozma, Mansell, & Beadle-Brown, 2009). Some educators who have not supported the implementation of IE have questioned the capacity of the system effectively to teach
these skills if a student spends a majority of classroom time in academically-focused regular education
settings. Saint-Laurent et al. (1998) and Hardiman, Guerin and Fitzsimons (2009), who studied children with moderate ID, as well as Cole and Meyer (1991) (who focused on students with severe ID) found
no significant differences in the development of adaptive behavior skills of children included in general
education classrooms and those attending special classes. Fischer and Meyer (2002) found that a
similar group of children with ID and intensive support needs educated in general education settings
made significantly larger gains in the development of their adaptive behavior skills than their peers
who spent the majority of the day in special classrooms. Working with students with Down syndrome,
Buckley, Bird, Sacks and Archer (2006) found no differences in adaptive behavior or socialization
between students educated primarily in general versus special education environments, with the
former achieving significantly higher scores on measures of communication and functional academic
skills than their counterparts attending special classes and schools.
Overall, research suggests that, when provided with proper supports, children with both mild and more
significant disabilities do as well academically – if not better – in inclusive classrooms as in segregated
settings. Multiple investigations have also established that when appropriate resources are available
to support these students in the general education environment, their presence has no significant
negative impact on the academic achievement of their peers without disabilities.
55
Abery, Tichá, & Kincade / Moving toward an inclusive education system…
Social and Psychological Outcomes
As Giangreco (2003) suggests, true inclusion reflects balanced approach to education in which children
are not only physically and academically included, but also able to experience inclusion in the social
and psychological sense. Social and psychological inclusion refer to the extent to which students with
disabilities experience a sense of belonging in and out of the classroom during the school day and
beyond. It also reflects a situation in which all students, including students with disabilities, are
considered to be full members of the school community and entitled to equal access to social and
academic opportunities (Keys, McMahon, & Viola, 2014). It is closely tied to practices that support
students with disabilities developing the personal capacities associated with the development and
maintenance of positive social relationships and the provision of opportunities to connect with peers
without disabilities on the basis of mutual choice.
Some research has found that inclusive instructional environments promote reciprocal friendships
within the classroom for students with disabilities (Vaughn, Elbaum, & Schumm, 1996) and have a
positive impact on the self-concept of students with special needs. Children and youth with disabilities
served within inclusive classrooms have been found to have more interactions and social contacts with
peers than those educated in other environments (Kennedy, Shukla, & Fryxell, 1997 ), and rate the general education classroom environment socially as high if not higher than their general education
peers (Hansen & Boody, 1998). Wiener and Tardiff (2004) in a Canadian study found that on a wide variety of social outcomes (which included measures of friendship, loneliness, self-perceptions and
social skills), comparisons between students educated in inclusive versus non-inclusive settings
favored the more inclusive approach. McMahon, Keys, Berardi, Crouch and Coker (2016) examined the
degree to which schools serving a high percentage of African-American and Latino-American students
were supporting the social aspects of IE and the links between teacher-reported inclusion practices
and student- and school-reported social outcomes. Findings supported the benefits of IE practices, in
that students in schools effectively implementing this approach through ensuring that all
extracurricular activities were accessible experienced greater social opportunities, participated more
frequently in school activities and experienced a greater sense of school belonging. These students
also performed at higher levels academically.
A number of studies report no significant social differences (i.e., no adverse impact) of students of
various ages educated within inclusive as opposed to segregated settings. Bossaert, Colpin, Pijl
and Petry (2015) reported no differences between companionship and support of the reciprocated
friendships of youth with autism spectrum disorders (ASD), students with motor and/or sensory
disabilities and their typically developing friends. A meta-analysis of the self-concept of students with
SLD found no overall relationship between self-concept and instructional setting for four out of five
comparisons, which suggests that students fared no better or worse in terms of self-concept in
inclusive as opposed to separate classrooms.
Research results suggest that the social and psychological impact of IE is mediated by a number of
variables, including type of disability and student age. Bakker, Denessen, Bosman, Krijger and Bouts
(2007) for example, found that in Dutch elementary schools students with general learning disabilities
were more often rejected and had a lower self-image than students with specific learning disabilities,
and that this held mainly for girls and students with general learning disabilities in general education
classes. De Verdier (2016) found that many students with vision loss who were included in general
education classes, in spite of the implementation of multiple interventions designed to enhance their
social inclusion, were more likely than their non-disabled peers to experience loneliness and report
other psychosocial problems. Other research suggests that students with disabilities experience
greater social isolation in inclusive settings (Fraught, Balleweg, Crow, & Van den Pol, 1983; Peterson,
1982; Sale & Carey, 1995). Students with special needs in inclusive settings are also typically rated
lower on socio-metric scales than their peers. Students likely to be eligible for special education
services but not yet "labeled" rated even lower than students already classified (Sale & Carey, 1995).
At the secondary level, research suggests physical inclusion may occur, but very little social integration
56
Abery, Tichá, & Kincade / Moving toward an inclusive education system…
(i.e. social inclusion). This appears to be especially true for students with intellectual disability
(Doré, Dion, Wagner, & Brunet, 2002).
In summary, one can conclude from previous studies that IE seems to allow children with a wide variety
of disabilities to make either as much, or in some cases more, progress in their academic achievement
than when they receive instruction within segregated educational settings. They also indicate that the
inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms does not have a negative impact
and in some cases may have a positive impact on the academic outcomes of peers without disabilities.
Findings with respect to the social outcomes associated with IE are more equivocal. Some suggest
positive or neutral outcomes, while others indicate the potential for considerable social exclusion and
in extreme cases harassment and bullying. Social outcomes appear closely associated with the type
and level of disability as well as with student age; more positive outcomes were reported in studies at
the elementary (i.e. K-5) level. However, interpretation of comparative studies focused on all outcomes
associated with IE should be tempered as a result of their typically quasi-experimental nature and a
wide variety of methodological weaknesses (Foreman, 2009; Lindsay, 2007; Myklebust, 2007).
6
Conclusions
The Education for All Handicapped Children’s Act (now referred to as the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act – IDEA) was passed by the U.S. Congress in 1975. Over the course of the 45 years that
have elapsed since that time, educators in the U.S. have made significant progress towards creating a
more inclusive educational system in which all children, including
those with disabilities, are not just physically integrated into general
education classrooms, but are able to experience both academic and
Successful inclusion
social inclusion. Although many students with disabilities in the U.S.
of children and youth
still do not experience what most would refer to as “full inclusion,” a
large percentage spend the majority of their school time in general
with disabilities as
education settings.
well as from other
The goal of this article was to provide context and background to
diverse backgrounds
inclusive education in the U.S. It would be tempting simply to simply
in school systems
recommend effective approaches that have been found to support
inclusion to be adopted in other countries with a commitment to the
and society at large is
implementation of inclusive education. We believe that such an
more critical than
approach, however, would be ill advised. Implementers need to take
ever, both in the U.S.
into consideration a number of factors the majority of which are
heavily influenced by the specific ecosystem within which one is
and in C.R.
planning to put IE in to place.
As Bronfenbrenner (1981; 1994) and Garbarino (1992) suggest, factors at each level of the ecosystem (microsystem, mesosystem exosystem & macrosystem) both directly and indirectly have the potential
to have an impact on both developmental and systems level outcomes. Macrosystem level factors,
including the ideology surrounding disability, “otherness” and the local institutional norms must be
considered if implementation of any program is to be successful. At the exosystem level, decisions
made by politicians and those working in government agencies have the potential to have a salutogenic
impact on implementation bringing in much needed resources or a pathogenic effect. Similarly, the
manner in which the immediate behavioral environments (i.e. microsystems) in which children with
diverse educational needs live (family, school, peer group, etc.) and the linkages between them
(mesosystem level) must be considered. If the societal ideology is such that persons with disabilities
and those from diverse backgrounds are de-humanized and as a result marginalized, it is unlikely that
parents will perceive that there is any real degree of utility to them getting an education. In a similar
fashion, poor communication and inadequate linkages between the school and family and quite quickly
impeded the impact of even a well develop individualized education plan.
57
Abery, Tichá, & Kincade / Moving toward an inclusive education system…
The Czech Republic is a recent adoptee of a national legislation on inclusive education. The new Czech
Decree on inclusive education (IE) provides this country in the heart of Europe a real opportunity at a
critical historic time to demonstrate to all children, their parents and the society around them that
learning together in inclusive environments is not only the most fair and equitable way of
understanding the world, but also a necessary step toward inclusion and appreciation of and respect
for diversity in life after school. The Czech Republic has a strong history of education and special
education in Jan Amos Komenský, Zdeněk Matějček and many others. As a country, the Czech Republic
has inherited a specific set of approaches to and uses of education through its history include
protecting its language and culture against foreign invasions as well as using education to manipulate
people’s views of their place in society. By adopting the philosophy of inclusive education and specific
approaches to including students from all backgrounds and abilities in this process, the Czech Republic
can become one of the lead examples of a progressive and embracing society it has always had the
potential to be.
Each country either on its own or with supports therefore needs to chart its own path toward inclusion
at both the societal level and with respect to the implementation of educational programs and
practices supportive of inclusive education. Nonetheless, it is our hope that educators and scholars in
the Czech Republic and other Central and European countries will find the approaches presented in
this article interesting and promising enough to seek more information, and might further design their
own projects to adapt the strategies to their own needs at this critical time – or be inspired to develop
their own. Mutual exchanges of ideas, experiences and expertise are the hallmark of good scholarship.
Let us work together to learn from each other, so that we produce the best outcomes possible for
all children and youth, wherever we may be.
References
Baker, E. T., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (1994). The effects of inclusion on learning. Educational
Leadership, 52, 33–35. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-
leadership/dec94/vol52/num04/Synthesis-of-Research-~-The-Effects-of-Inclusion-on-
Learning.aspx
Bakker, J. T. A., Denessen, E., Bosman, A. M. T., Kijger, E. M., & Bouts, L. (2007). Sociometric status and
self-image of children with specific and general learning disabilities in Dutch general and
special education classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30, 47–62. Retrieved from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/30035515.pdf
Booth, T. (2005). Keeping the future alive: putting inclusive values in to action. Forum, 47(2), 151–158.
doi:10.2304/forum.2005.47.2.4
Booth, T., Ainscow, M., & Dyson, A. (2006). Improving schools, developing inclusion. Routledge,
London. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/309634.pdf?repositoryId=3
Bossaert, G., Colpin, H., Pijl, S. P., & Petry, K. (2015). Quality of reciprocated friendships of students
with special educational needs in mainstream seventh grade. Exceptionality, 23, 54–72.
doi:10.1080/09362835.2014.986600
Bouck, E. C. (2007). Lost in translation? Educating secondary students with mild mental impairment.
Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 18, 79–87. doi:10.1177/10442073070180020401
Brock, M. E., Biggs, E. E., Carter, E. W., Cattey, G. N., & Raley, K. S. (2016). Implementation and
generalization of peer support arrangements for students with severe disabilities in inclusive
classrooms. The Journal of Special Education, 49, 221–232. doi:10.1177/0022466915594368
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1981). The Ecology of human development - Experiments by nature and design.
Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
58
Abery, Tichá, & Kincade / Moving toward an inclusive education system…
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In International Encyclopedia of
education. Oxford: Elsevier.
Buckley, S., Bird, G., Sacks, B., & Archer, T. (2006). A comparison of mainstream and special education
for teenagers with Down syndrome: Implications for parents and teachers. Down Syndrome
Research and Practice, 9, 54–67. doi:10.3104/reports.295
Carter, E. W., & Hughes, C. (2006). Including high school students with severe disabilities in general
education classes: Perspectives of general and special educators, paraprofessionals, and
administrators. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31(2), 174–185.
doi:10.1177/154079690603100209
Cole, C. M., Waldron, N., & Majd, M. (2004). Academic progress of students across inclusive and
traditional
settings.
Mental
Retardation,
42,
136–144.
doi:10.1352/0047-
6765(2004)42<136:APOSAI>2.0.CO;2
Cole, D. A., & Meyer, L. H. (1991). Social integration and severe disabilities: a longitudinal analysis of
child
outcomes .
The
Journal
of
Special
Education,
25,
340–351.
doi:10.1177/002246699102500306
Copeland, S. R., Hughes, C., Carter, E. W., Guth, C., Presley, J., Williams, C. R, & Fowler, S. E. (2004).
Increasing access to general education: Perspectives of participants in a high school peer
support program. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 342–352.
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2009, September 28th). United Nations.
Retrieved
from
https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=IV-
15&chapter=4&clang=_en
Copeland, S. R., McCall, J., Williams, C. R., Guth, C., Carter, E. W., & Presley, J. A. (2002). The Peer Buddy
Program is a win-win situation: Teachers’ perspectives of a high school peer support program.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(1), 16–21.
De Verdier, K. (2016). Inclusion in and out of the classroom: A longitudinal study of students with visual
impairments in inclusive education. British Journal of Visual Impairment 2016, 34(2), 132–142.
doi:0.1177/0264619615625428
Dessemontet, R. S., Bless, G., & Morin, D. (2012). Effects of inclusion on the academic achievement
and adaptive behaviour of children with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual
Disability Research, 579–587. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2011.01497.x
Devroye, J. (2009). The Case of D. H. and others v. the Czech Republic. Northwestern Journal of
International
Human
Rights,
7(1),
81–101.
Retrieved
from
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njihr/vol7/iss1/3
Sacramento City School District v. Rachel H., 14 F. 3d 1398 (1994).
Dixon, D. R. (2007). Adaptive behavior scales. In J. L. Matson (Ed.), Handbook of assessment in persons
with intellectual disabilities (pp. 99–140). San Diego: Academic Press.
Doré, R., Dion, E., Wagner, S., & Brunet, J. P. (2002). High school inclusion of adolescents with mental
retardation: A multiple case study. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and
Developmental
Disabilities,
37(3),
253–261.
Retrieved
from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23880003
Dyson, A. (1999). Inclusion and inclusions: Theories and discourses in inclusive education. In H. Daniels,
& P. Garner (Eds.), World yearbook or education (pp. 36–53). London: Kogan Page.
Education for All Handicapped Children Act, Pub L. No. 94-142, § 89 Stat. 773 (1975).
Every Student Succeeds Act, Pub. L. No. 114-95, § 129 Stat. 1802 (2015).
59
Abery, Tichá, & Kincade / Moving toward an inclusive education system…
Farrell, P. (2000). The impact of research on developments in inclusive education. International Journal
of Inclusive Education, 4(2), 153–162. doi:10.1080/136031100284867
Farrell, P., Dyson, A., Polat, F., Hutcheson, G., & Gallannaugh, F. (2007). The relationship between
inclusion and academic achievement in English mainstream schools. School Effectiveness and
School Improvement, 18, 335–352, doi:10.1080/09243450701442746
Florian, L, & Becirevic, M. (2011). Challenges for teachers’ professional learning for inclusive education
in Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States. Prospects, 41,
371–384. doi:10.1007/s11125-011-9208-4
Foreman, P. (2009). Education of students with an intellectual disability: Research and practice.
Charlotte: Information Age Publishing Inc.
Fraught, K. K., Balleweg, B. J., Crow, R. E., & Van den Pol, R. A. (1983). An analysis of social behaviors
among handicapped and non-handicapped preschool children. Education and Training of the
Mentally Retarded, 18, 210–214. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23877366
Freeman, S. F. N., & Alkin, M. C. (2000). Academic and social attainments of children with mental
retardation in general education and special education setting. Remedial and Special
Education, 21, 3–18. doi:10.1177/074193250002100102
Garbarino, J. (1992) Children and Families in the Social Environment: Modern Applications of Social
Work. New York: Aldine Transaction.
Giangreco, M. F. (2003). Moving toward inclusive education. In W. L. Heward (Ed.), Exceptional
children: An introduction to special education (pp. 78–79). Englewood Cliffs: Merrill.
Giangreco, M. F. (2011). Educating students with severe disabilities: Foundational concepts and
practices. In M. E. Snell & F. Brown (Eds.), Instruction of students with severe disabilities (pp.
1 – 30) . Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education/Prentice-Hall.
Giangreco, M. F., & Suter, J. C. (2015). Precarious or purposeful? Proactively building inclusive special
education service delivery on solid ground. Inclusion, 3(3), 112–131. doi:10.1352/2326-6988-
3.3.112
Hansen, L. L., & Boody, R. M. (1998). Special education students' perceptions of their mainstreamed
classes. Education, 118(4), 6–10.
Hardiman, S., Guerin, S., & Fitzsimons, E. (2009). A comparison of the social competence of children
with moderate intellectual disability in inclusive versus segregated school settings. Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 30, 397–407. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2008.07.006
Hegarty, S. (1993). Reviewing the literature on integration. European Journal of Special Needs
Education, 8, 194–200. doi:10.1080/0885625930080302
Howes, A., Farrell, P., Kaplan, I., & Moss, S. (2003). The impact of paid adult support on the participation
and learning of pupils in mainstream schools. London: HMSO.
Hunt, P., & McDonnell, J. (2009). Inclusive education. In S. L. Odom, R. H. Horner, M. E. Snell, & J.
Blacher (Eds.), Handbook of developmental disabilities (pp. 269–91). London: The Guilford
Press.
Hunt, P., Staub, D., Alwell, M., & Goetz, L. (1994). Achievement by all students within the context of
cooperative learning groups. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 19,
290–301. doi:10.1177/154079699401900405
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
60
Abery, Tichá, & Kincade / Moving toward an inclusive education system…
Kennedy, H. C., Shukla, S., & Fryxell, D. (1997). Comparing the effects of educational placement on the
social relationships of intermediate school students with severe disabilities. Exceptional
Children, 64, 31–47. doi:10.1177/001440299706400103
Keys, C. B., McMahon, S. D., & Viola, J. J. (2014). Including students with disabilities in urban public
schools: Community psychology theory and research. Journal of Prevention and Intervention
in the Community, 42, 1–6. doi:10.1080/10852352.2014.855025
Kozma, A., Mansell, J., & Beadle-Brown, J. (2009). Outcomes in different residential settings for people
with intellectual disability a systematic review. American Journal on Intellectual and
Developmental Disabilities, 114, 193–222. doi:10.1352/1944-7558-114.3.193
Laws, G., Byrne, A., & Buckley, S. (2000). Language and memory development in children with Down
syndrome at mainstream and special schools: A comparison. Educational Psychology, 20, 447–
57. doi:10.1080/713663758
Lindsay,
G.
(2007).
Educational
psychology
and
the
effectiveness
of
inclusive
education/mainstreaming. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 1–24.
doi:10.1348/000709906X156881
Madden, N. A., & Slavin, R. E. (1983). Mainstreaming students with mild handicaps: Academic and
social
outcomes.
Review
of
Educational
Research,
53,
519–569.
doi:10.3102/00346543053004519
Markussen, E. (2004). Special education: Does it help? A study of special education in Norwegian upper
secondary schools. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 19, 33–48.
doi:10.1080/0885625032000167133
Martin, E., Martin, R., & Terman, D. (1996). The legislative and litigation history of special education.
The Future of Children, 6, 25–39. doi:10.2307/1602492
McMahon, S. D., Keys, K. B., Berardi, L., Crouch, R., & Coker, C. (2016). School inclusion: A
multidimensional framework and links with outcomes among urban youth with disabilities.
Journal of Community Psychology, 44(5), 656–673. doi:10.1002/jcop.21793
Mittler, P. (2000). Working towards inclusive education: Social contexts. London: David Fulton
Publishers.
Myklebust, J. O. (2002). Inclusion or exclusion? Transitions among special needs students in upper
secondary education in Norway. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17, 251–263.
doi:10.1080/08856250210162158
Myklebust, J. O. (2007). Diverging paths in upper secondary education: Competence attainment among
students with special educational needs. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 11(2),
215–231. doi:10.1080/13603110500375432
National Center for Education Statistics. (2016, May 26th). The Condition of Education 2011. Retrieved
from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2011033
No Child Left Behind Act, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2001).
Obrusnikova, I., Valkova, H., & Block, M. E. (2003). Impact of inclusion in general physical education on
students without disabilities. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 20, 230–245.
doi:10.1123/apaq.20.3.230
Opretti, R., & Belalcazar, C. (2008). Trends in inclusive education at regional and interregional levels:
Issues and challenges. Prospects, 38, 113–135. doi:10.1007/s11125-008-9062-1
Peetsma, T., Vergeer, M., Roeleveld, J., & Karsten, S. (2001). Inclusion in education: Comparing pupils'
development in special and regular education. Educational Review, 53(2), 125–135.
doi:10.1080/00131910120055552
61
Abery, Tichá, & Kincade / Moving toward an inclusive education system…
Peterson, N. L. (1982). Social integration of handicapped and nonhandicapped preschoolers: A study
of playmate preferences. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 2(2), 56–59.
doi:10.1177/027112148200200210
Polat, F. (2011). Inclusion in education: A step towards social justice. International Journal of
Educational Development, 31, 50–58. doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2010.06.009
Rankin, D. H., Logan, K. R., Adcock, J., Angelucci, J., Pittman, C., Sexstone, A., & Straughn, S. (1999).
Small group learning: Effects of including a student with intellectual disabilities. Journal of
Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 11, 159–177. doi:10.1023/A:1021899121418
Raynor, J., Sumra, S., & Unterhalter, E. (2007). Promoting equity and inclusion in education within a
budget support context. A study commissioned by DFID Tanzania on behalf of the
Development
Partner
Group
(Education),
Dar
es
Salaam.
Retrieved
from
http://eprints.ioe.ac.uk/1936/
Rea, P. J., McLaughlan, V. L., & Walther-Thomas, C. (2002). Outcomes for students with learning
disabilities in inclusive and pullout programmes. Exceptional Children, 68, 203–223.
doi:10.1177/001440290206800204
Saint-Laurent, L., Dionne, J., Giasson, J., Royer, E., Simard, C., & Peirard, B. (1998). Academic
achievement effects of an in-class service model on students with and without disabilities.
Exceptional Children, 64(2), 239–253. doi:10.1177/001440299806400207
Sale, P., & Carey, D. M. (1995). The sociometric status of students with disabilities in a full-inclusion
school. Exceptional Children, 62, 6–19. doi:10.1177/001440299506200102
Sebba, J., & Sachdev, D. (1997). What works in inclusive education? London: Barnardo's Publishing.
Sirovátka, T. (2016). Czech Republic takes new measures to improve the inclusion of Roma children in
mainstream education. European Social Policy Network Flesh Report, 27, 1–2. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=15795&langId=en
Srivastava, M., Boer, A., & Pijl, S. J. (2015). Inclusive education in developing countries: A closer look at
its implementation in the last 10 years. Educational Review, 67, 179–195.
doi:10.1080/00131911.2013.847061
Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1984). A rationale for the merger of special and regular education.
Exceptional
Children,
51(2),
102–111.
Retrieved
from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6238827
Szumski, G., & Karwowski, M. (2014). Psychosocial functioning and school achievement of children
with mild intellectual disability in Polish special, integrative, and mainstream schools. Journal
of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 11(2), 99–108. doi:10.1111/jppi.12076
Taylor, S. J. (1982). From segregation to integration: Strategies for integrating severely handicapped
students in normal school and community settings. Journal of the Association for the Severely
Handicapped, 8(3), 42–49. doi:10.1177/154079698200700305
Taylor, S. J. (2004). Caught in the continuum: A critical analysis of the principle of the least restrictive
environment. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 29(4), 218–230.
Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2511/rpsd.29.4.218
Vaughn, S., Elbaum, B. E., & Schumm, J. S. (1996). The effects of inclusion on the social functioning of
students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 598–608.
doi:10.1177/002221949602900604
Vygotsky, L. S. (1993). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. New York: Plenum.
62
Abery, Tichá, & Kincade / Moving toward an inclusive education system…
Wiener, J., & Tardif, C. Y. (2004). Social and emotional functioning of children with learning disabilities:
Does special education placement make a difference? Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 19, 20–32. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2004.00086.x
