Full Inclusion: An Empirical Perspective

It is argued that educational treatments of children with disabilities should be empirically validated. From this perspective the current press for full inclusion is examined against empirical evidence bearing on the major assertions of advocates for full inclusion. Students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) are among the most difficult to include, and the unique problems presented by such children often are ignored by advocates for full inclusion. Arguments for full inclusion, particularly as they apply to children with emotional and behavioral disorders suffer from: (a) the failure to specify what constitutes full inclusion, (b) the weakness of relying on anecdotal reports and single case studies to validate the utility of full inclusion of all children with disabilities, and (c) the fact that the evidence that does exist fails to include children with emotional and behavioral disorders. Finally, evidence is summarized that contradicts the position that “more restrictive” placements are never beneficial and that regular class placement is always beneficial to all children with disabilities.