At the Nexis of Schooling: The Conflict Between "Special" and "Inclusive" Education

Abstract

<p>Inclusive education has struggled to gain traction in recent years, despite it having been the prevailing philosophy globally for the education of students with a disability for more than quarter of a century, and in more contemporary times, for all students. In many countries there is evidence to suggest segregation and exclusion of some groups of students, particularly those with a disability or other identified needs, is again on the rise. The reasons for this are varied and complex, yet one notion that requires further exploration is the role special education, and those working in the field, have played in the inclusive education debate. Inclusive education emerged from within the special education debate, and much of the discourse around it still attaches itself to ‘residual ideas’ from each of the exclusion, segregation, and integration eras (Mac Ruaic 2020). Having grown out of the field of special education, inclusive education consistently gets entangled in the politics of disability and education (Artiles and Kozleski 2016). The challenges from special educators to protect what has traditionally been their educational space are real (Sailor 2017). Slee (2018a) describes the recent push against inclusive education from within the special education field as a ‘reassertion of brand special education’ (p. 24). Advocates of special education have fought to maintain separate provisions for students with disability, in the form of segregated classes and special schools (Avissar 2018). The argument is based on the premise that this segregation is needed – it is for their own good (Slee 2018b) – because ‘special and general education are actually different’ (Kauffman et al. 2018b, p. 3). The argument goes that inclusive education, with its focus on place of education rather than on the instruction of education, places students with disabilities at a disadvantage (Kauffman et al. 2018b), and therefore separate placements are required. Imray and Colley (2017) position full inclusion as the enemy of special education, with statements such as this: ‘full inclusion seems to be intent on abolishing special schools and classes’ (p. 6). Assertions made by special educationalists, such as those described here, have set the debate as one centred around ‘inclusion verses non-inclusion’ (Jackson et al. 2018). This chapter explores the current literature as described above and connects it to the everyday practice of primary school principals, who have found themselves caught up in the politics of the special versus inclusive education debate.</p>