The most successful settings I have seen have staffed all inclusion settings with a minimum of one content (general education) teacher, and one special education teacher, and had ongoing training and follow-up with general education teachers on universal design. Also, inclusive settings are not supposed to ever go over 50% students with special needs.
I'll quibble with platypus a little in that inclusion does not mean that 25 different special needs students are now split across 25 different classrooms. They are typically clustered in inclusion settings like those described above. This ought to apply to both ends of the spectrum.
What you are describing aeh would be shot down instantly in my city as not-inclusive. Pretty much any mention of clustering or grouping is a no-go because it isn't deemed inclusive. That in itself isn't the issue but when specialized programs are cut without adding ANY supports for children who are now all back in the regular classroom it becomes an issue.
(although I do appreciate Tigerle's perspective since it is easy to wallow in our problems and forget that it could be much worse).
I‘ll go even further and tell you, aeh, that if you were to utter your quibble in any discussion on the topic here that any Tom, Dick and Harry who has ever made it through half an article on the issue but who has an ideological investment will tell you (you!) with great glee and satisfaction that you clearly have NO idea what you are talking about because clearly you are describing an „integrative“ setting as opposed to an „inclusive“ setting, which is SO last millennium. Inclusion being of course exactly what platypus has described, with every teacher being able to meet every kids needs wherever they are, because that’s what teacher do.
Meanwhile, every single educator who has actually any long term experience in the matter will roll their eyes so hard they almost fall out of their sockets because they know that the model aeh has described is actually the only model they have seen that works.
Some of you have called inclusion a value system and pointed out, quite rightly, that it cannot be the only value system that education should be based on. However, I am with aquinas and will call it an ideology. The point being that an ideology does not acknowledge other value systems, period.
Where I am not with aquinas is in the idea that one of the values should be equality in the way resources are shared. There will be children who have medical needs that are so costly you could run a whole classroom with non disabled kids with the money the cost, and they have the right to that disproportionate share. The same goes for resources for the kids who struggle with access to the regular curriculum (which can be more costly than simply saying okay, let’s just change our educational goals for you). Not just a right but probably a good investment of public funds, if there is a chance for regular employment or at least independent living. But the provision for an individual child should, first and foremost, be driven by that child’s needs.
Then, if you can scale by grouping and clustering, group away, because there is a need to balance the budget, too. Inclusion as an ideology prevents that, of course. Inclusion as an value among many does not.
