Thanks all for such thoughtful input! For the types of reasons pemberley describes so well, we've gotten to the point here where we tend to reflexively use "inclusion" as a curse word. I really appreciate Tigerle's reminder of where we came from and what the alternative used to look like. There's no doubt that we used to use specialized classes as a dumping ground, and this was really bad for kids. To be honest, our district still has a small number of specialized LD classes, and they are still a bit of a dumping ground for kids with severe behavioral issues, but we are at least pretending to try and fix that. sigh. Change is v e r y slow.
I think the core challenge is that inclusion is a value system, not an educational structure. For many kinds of spec ed need, it flies in the face of both research evidence and financial logistics, but those considerations are irrelevant when the value over-rides all. I do think it's an important value, and our policy makers embraced inclusion with the best of intentions. I do not think they gave much thought to it's practical implications, nor did they recognize that the voices calling for inclusion only represent a small, though highly-visible, portion of the population with spec ed needs.
On the practical side, you cannot get anyone in our system to admit on paper that inclusion, done correctly, is far, far more expensive. It needs way more people, time, money and resources. This is just simple logistics. If 25 kids need to be taught a certain way, it's a whole lot easier to put them in one class and do it once, then have them in 25 separate classes and have to do the same thing 25 separate times. Unfortunately, our districts are finding that they can make major budget cuts to spec ed by removing specialized classes, and trumpet those cuts as an unassailable move to more inclusion - and who could be against that? Somehow, the savings never roll back into supporting those same kids in the regular classroom. In practice, inclusion means you get the exact same thing as everyone else, though we may throw in a laptop (without instruction, support or relevant software, because your regular classroom teacher has neither time nor knowledge to help you use it).
On the 'who is inclusion good for', I think both Tigerle and pemberley describe some of the issues I hinted at. I think the dividing line is, is this child best served by maximizing their time with the regular curriculum, and a "typical" group of age peers? Those kids hugely benefit from inclusion, as long as the system is able to provide the accommodations they need to participate effectively in the class, and the teacher has the support she needs to reach both that child, and the other children in her class, and doesn't have to choose one or the other.
The flip question, though, is, is this child best served by maximizing their time with a
different curriculum/ teaching approach, and a group of peers whose learning needs are similar to their own?
The deep adherence to inclusion as the fundamental and overriding value means our educational system is genuinely unable to compute the possibility that this second group of kids even exists. And unfortunately, numbers-wise, it's huge (you could loosely estimate 20% of the population LD, and 2% gifted). It's also what I often refer to as the "invisible" exceptionalities: things that aren't medical diagnoses, that don't involve noticeable physical or intellectual challenges, that may not be noticeable until the child enters school - or even much later. It's really easy to ignore the kids who are just not learning, as long as (until) they become behaviour problems. It's pretty notable that in our district, we identify 2-3 times more boys than girls in every 'non-medical' exceptionality, including gifted and LDs. Our LD identification rate is ridiculously low, and 2/3 even of that small number aren't identified before secondary. The ones who act up get noticed. Girls are more likely to shut down, and get ignored. With 20-30 other kids in the class, the reality is, no teacher has the time to bother with a kid who isn't bothering her. Mere failure to learn does not trigger intervention.
OK, that's a big rant about the problems. I'll conclude this portion of our programming (for fellow ed research nerd Tigerle
) with this link to a report on inclusion in another province, which had our district's special education committee nodding along in pretty strong recognition:
http://www.ed.gov.nl.ca/edu/task_force/report.PDF . Chapter 1 is about the inclusion model, and consultation feedback starts on p11. Here's a couple of representative quotes, which I think also really capture our own experience. The second one is painfully true, and gets to the core of that problem-who-shall-not-be-named in our education system:
"No one spoke in support of the model, and the phrase “Inclusion is a wonderful concept but....” was used at every consultation as people attempted to differentiate a philosophy of embracing diversity from a model of delivering supports to students with identified exceptionalities. ... Numerous presenters spoke to an apprehension of appearing ‘anti-diversity’ when they speak against inclusion, but the present model is untenable for students and teachers alike."
Input from a teacher: “Inclusive education is NOT working - not in our current system. The students who are included are actually excluded in their classrooms. They feel excluded because their peers complete their work faster. They feel excluded because they can't keep up. They feel excluded because they can't comprehend the curriculum because it is not at their level. They are more stigmatized than ever before.” 
