ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITHOUT DISABILITIES IN THE
INCLUSIVE ENVIRONMENTJa s o n D. Fr u t hWright State UniversityMe
l a n ie N . W oo d sWright State UniversityThis study examines the
impact of inclusion on secondary students by focusing on the
performance of students without disabilities in the inclusive
environment compared to their performance in a seg regated
environment. Many studies exist demonstrating the positive impact
of the inclusive environment on the performance of students with
disabilities. However, there is little research demonstrating the
impact of the inclusive environment on the performance of students
without disabilities. This randomized control experiment showed
that there was no significant dilference in the performance of stu
dents without disabilities in the inclusive versus segregated
environ ments in reading, science, and social studies content
areas. Students without disabilities scored significantly higher in
segregated envi ronments versus inclusive environments in math.
Further research examining the impact of the environment on the
performance of stu dents without disabilities is
recommended.Introductionoffer appropriate supports provided free of
Researchers, advocates, and theoristscharge to those who have been
identified as agree that students with disabilities learn
besthaving a disability in accordance with casein the inclusive
environment alongside theirlaw and the Individuals with
Disabilitiespeers (Idol, 2006; Kune, 1992; Zaretsky,Education Act
(P.L. 94-142, Section 1412 [5] 2005). Provisions o f the
Individuals with[B]). This environment involves differenti
Disabilities Education Act stipulate that stuated instruction,
leveled activities, or even dents with disabilities must be
educated inmultiple professionals in the same classroom their least
restrictive environment (P.L. 94-at a time. Thus, the experience of
a student in 142, Section 1412 [5] [B]). As well, a teaman
inclusive classroom is inherently different o f individuals
including parents, teachers, andfrom a student in a segregated
classroom. administrators must agree to any deviationResearchers
such as Idol (2006) and Far from that placement.rell, Dyson, Polat,
Hutcheson, and Gallan-The inclusive environment is the environ
naugh (2007) provided evidence that students ment in which students
with disabilities and with disabilities performed better in the
inclu students without disabilities learn side-by- sive environment
than the segregated envi side in the same classroom. These
classrooms ronment. According to Idol, standardized testscores
generally increased or were unchanged351
352 / Education Vol. 135 No. 3after an inclusion policy was
implemented.performance in light of high-stakes testing, This is
quite significant, as the students whoidentifying each predictor
for student suc were introduced to the classroom were stucess is
vital. Therefore, identifying environ dents with disabilities, and
generally had lowments in which students are learning best er
academic ability levels than the studentswould prove valuable to
stakeholders. As they were joining in the inclusive classroom.well,
subsequent research regarding support Advocates also point to
accepted eduor justifications for aspects of the inclusive cational
theories to show that students withenvironment will help refine the
practice of disabilities benefit from the inclusive environteachers
in every environment. To this point, ment. According to Kune (in
Villa, Thousand,the inclusive environment has gained favor
Stainback and Stainback,1992), the inclusiveand been mandated as a
basis for the edu environment more closely meets studentscation of
students with disabilities as noted needs in accordance with
Maslows hierarchy.in its requirement of the least restrictive The
segregated environment inappropriatelyenvironment provision of the
Individuals places achievement before belonging. That is,with
Disabilities Education Act (P.L. 94- students must achieve in the
segregated envi142, Section 1412 [5] [B]). The inclusive ronment
before they can belong in the generalenvironment has been generally
accepted as environment. According to Kune, proponentsincreasing
the educational performance and of the inclusive environment
understand thatsocial experience of students with disabili students
must know that they belong beforeties. However, an experiment
measuring the they can achieve.performance of students without
disabilities A number of factors could be responsiblein the
inclusive environment compared to a for the increase in performance
of studentscontrol group of their peers in the segregat with
disabilities in the inclusive environment.ed environment is
necessary. Then, further Teachers who succeed in the inclusive
envianalysis of the environment can take place ronment utilize
superior teaching strategiesto identify those aspects that this
unique en such as team- or co-teaching, universal design,vironment
provides that benefits all students. and differentiated
instruction. According toThe inclusive environment represents a
Ferguson, Desjarlais, and Meyer (2000), thesechange for how
students with and without along with other evidenced-based
strategiesdisabilities have historically learned. This uniquely
equip the inclusive environment forenvironment has the intent to
embrace all student success. Further research is necessarystudents
and meet their educational needs. to determine which of these
numerous stratAccording to Lipsky and Gartner (1998); egies and
methods impact learning the mostConnor and Ferri (2007), increasing
the per within the environment.formance of students with
disabilities and However, little research has been
carrieddifferences requires a restructuring of the out that
displays the impact of the inclusivepractice and approach of
education -not ad environment as an educational method,
stratdressing students with differences as a part of egy, or
treatment for students who have nota separate system. Lipsky and
Gartner go on been identified as having a disability. It isto
assert, A dual system of education fails not known how students
without disabilitiesall students, primarily those with disabili
perform in the inclusive environment whereties. As well, separation
is costly, a civil students with disabilities are present,
activerights violation, and a cause for limited out members in the
learning process.comes for students with disabilities (p. 78). As
schools seek to maximize studentThe authors assert that under this
inclusive
Performance of Students Without Disabilities in the Inclusive
Environment / 353model, the services and nature of the schoolsof
labeling, segregation, and exclusion of the are in need of
improvement-not further claspast. Authors such as Lipsky (2005)
claim that sifying its students who are suffering undersuch a
system fosters the growth and develop the schools care. Further,
including studentsment of each student to his or her potential with
differences ought to be a part of a modelregardless of ability or
disability. According system of school improvement. Accordingto
Lipsky (2005), such a system should in to Lipsky and Gartner
(1998), school imclude strong leadership, quality teachers,
provement with a foundation of includingchallenging curriculum,
differentiated in all students incorporates an end to
labelingstruction, careful and regular assessments, students and
shutting them out of the regularengagement of parents and
community, and classroom to obtain needed services (p. 81).a focus
on the meeting of standards and the Often miscommunication among
polachievement of outcomes (p. 156). Similarly, icy-makers such as
government officials,Crockett (2002) claims, What schools really
administrators, school boards, and localrequire are responsive
leaders-knowledge- educational associations leads to confusionable
persons in positions of influence who are and mismanagement at the
classroom levcommitted to ensuring contexts that support el.
According to Ainscow, Farrell, Tweddlelearning for each and every
student (p. 157). and Malki (1999), Within the data, it wasSeveral
studies have gathered evidence apparent that there was general
support forregarding performance in the inclusive en inclusive
education but enormous differencesvironment. Farrell, et al. (2007)
studied the of opinion about LEA inclusion policies andrelationship
between the inclusion of students what they might involve (p. 2).
The differwith disabilities and academic achievement in ing agendas
of the various stakeholders couldprimary and secondary schools in
England. place teachers and parents in a precariousThey examined
academic performance at position regarding how their student
willseveral traditional benchmarks and sought a receive the best
education. In another study,relationship between that performance
and Ainscow, Booth, and Dyson (2004), identifythe level of
inclusiveness at that school. First, the different pressures and
the nature of thethey found no significant statistical relation
tensions between national policies for raisingship between the
performance of a district standards and reducing marginalization
(p.and its level of inclusiveness. That is, in all, 137). Zaretsky
(2005) notes the lack of conthe performance of a rather segregated
group sistent dialogue between principals, parents,(or group
without students with disabilities) and teachers as problematic to
orchestratingcould not be statistically distinguished from a
successful environment. Perpetuating ana more inclusive group-
which of course in us versus them division between scholarscluded
students of more varying ability. The in special education and
disability studies isauthors show the miniscule impact of includ
counterproductive and damaging to attemptsing a great number of
students in the district, by practitioners to attend to multiple
interestsin showing that introducing students eligible and ways
ofknowing (p. 82). Such examplesfor a free school meal had 15.54
times more highlight the difficulties associated with putnegative
impact on student scores than the ting theory into practice in
regard to creatingintroduction of students with special needs. an
inclusive environment.Thus, they concluded that schools should not
Constructing a new educational enviworry about the inclusive
environment nega ronment with such bold aspirations wouldtively
impacting the performance of studentscertainly require a shift from
the dual systemwithout disabilities.
354 / Education Vol. 135 No. 3In a four-year study, Peetsma,
Vergeer,average student statewide test scores over a Roeleveld, and
Karsten (2001) measured thefour-year period (Idol, 2006, p. 89).
performance of matched pairs of pupils -Idol (2006) stated, One of
the biggest one in a mainstream school and the other inconcerns of
many educators and the general a special school. They determined,
At-riskpublic is the possible adverse effect that the pupils in
regular education made more progpresence of student with
disabilities in the ress in mathematics than pupils in
schoolsgeneral education classroom might have on for pupils with
(learning or behavior difficulthe statewide testing results of
other students ties). As well, Pupils cognitive develop(p. 93).
Such data should go a long way to ment in regular education was
significantlydispelling such myths and opening up optimal stronger
(p. 130). Mastropieri et al. (2006)educational experiences for all
students based found similar results in a study involvingon
practical evidence.traditional versus collaborative educationalIn
summary, there is considerably more approaches in the inclusive
science classresearch that focuses on students with disabil room.
According to the authors, Students inities, and less for students
without disabilities inclusive science classes can work with
eachthat are in the inclusive environment. The other in critical
content areas, and when theypurpose of this study, then, is to
examine the do so, their content area learning improvesacademic
performance of high school students at a rate greater than that
attained throughwithout disabilities who are learning in inclu
instruction that is more traditional (p. 136).sive environments.
The outcome of the present Idol (2006) published perhaps the
moststudy contributes to the on-going dialogue comprehensive study
on inclusive environregarding the most effective environments,
ments. Idol found in a study of inclusivestrategies, and methods
for student learning.elementary schools that a majority of theThe
research question guiding this study: teachers reported that the
performance ofAre there significant differences in the students
without disabilities improved or waseducational performance -
measured by unaffected by the presence of students withSocial
Studies, Science, Mathematics, and disabilities in the classroom.
Similarly, a maReading - of 10th grade students without jority also
reported that having students withdisabilities in inclusive versus
segregated disabilities in the classroom either increasedlearning
environments?test scores of the students without disabilitiesor
scores remained about the same. To sumMethodsup, These data provide
evidence that theResearch Designpresence of students with
disabilities in theFor this group comparison study, a post general
education program had not been deletest only, quasi-experimental
design was terious to the test performance of the generalutilized
to assess the differences in the per education students (p.
85).formance of two distinct, mutually exclusive Idol (2006) found
similar results in a studygroups: 10th grade students without
disabiliof four secondary schools. Again, a large ties who learned
in an inclusive environment majority of teachers reported that
student and 10th grade students without disabilities performance
either improved or remained who learned in a segregated environment
unaffected by the presence of students with (N=203). As these
students had not been iden disabilities in the classroom. The most
tified as having a disability, their placement striking finding was
that with one exception, by the school in either the control or
tested each school made noticeable improvement in environment was
random.
Performance of Students Without Disabilities in the Inclusive
Environment / 355Settingperformance, or socioeconomic status do not
According to the Ohio Department ofskew the performance of a
particular class Education School Year Report Cards, theroom. Thus,
scores from students who werehigh school achieved an Excellent
ratingplaced in a classroom for a particular subject for three
years prior to this study. This desby non-random means were
excluded from ignation indicated that the school achievedthe study.
Administrative placements, paren a satisfactory number of
indicators that thetal requests, and students with disabilities are
school made progress toward Adequateall examples of individual
student placements Yearly Progress. Table 1 shows demographicthat
were non-random. Also excluded from data of the district studied
compared to statethe study were entire classrooms made up of of
Ohio averages.students whose placement was non-random.For example,
resource classrooms made uponly of students with disabilities and
honors Table 1. Study District and State of Ohioclassrooms made up
of students who had to Average Demographicsmeet certain criteria
and be approved for wereEnrollment Poverty LEP Disabilitiesnot
appropriate for the study as their placeDistrictment was not
random. For this reason, theABC3,51330.9%0.2% 15.4%number of scores
for each research questionOhioand subject area does not equal
203.Average 2,67934.1%3.4% 13.3%MeasuresParticipantsThe data for
this study was provided In this study, the target population
wasfrom the results of the Ohio Graduation Test the class of 2012
at a suburban Southwest(OGT). According to the Ohio Department ern
Ohio High School. O f these 10th gradeof Education, the OGT is a
criterion-refer students, the performance of two distinct,enced
assessment based on the Ohio Content mutually exclusive groups was
assessed:Standards that ensures students who graduate 10th grade
students without disabilities whoand receive a diploma from a
school in the learned in an inclusive environment andstate of Ohio
achieve at least minimum stan 10th grade students without
disabilities whodards in the content areas - reading, science,
learned in a segregated environment. Formathematics, and social
studies assessments. this study, 203 students met the criteria
forRoughly 145,000 students took the assess examination. That is,
203 students could bement in 2010 - the year this study took
placeidentified as 10th grade students for the first(Ohio
Department of Education, 2011).time and were taking the OGT for the
firstStudents begin taking the OGT in the time. Further, these 203
members of the10th grade. Each content area test consists of 2012
graduating class had not been identimultiple-choice and written
response ques fied as having a disability or have any othertions
from which a raw score is formed. A special placement requests or
designationsscaled score is then derived from the raw that kept
them from being placed in either ascore on each test so as to allow
for reporting segregated or inclusive classroom randomly.and
comparison between different adminis Naturally, the randomness of
each stutrations within each content area. For this dents placement
is essential to the comparireason, comparisons across content areas
areson study as it ensures that variables attributnot appropriate.
ed to each student such as attendance, past
356 / Education Vol. 135 No. 3Variablescompared to the alpha of
.05. If the p-value Variables that were controlled includeis less
than the alpha of .05, then the outputseveral realities of the
environment that could is statistically significant and
determineslimit the study due to the convenience sam whether to
accept or reject the null hypothe pling. These include significant
differences sis of no significant difference existing in the in the
students involved in each class due to educational performance of
students from the non-random placement. The randomness of inclusive
and segregated environments.each students placement in either the
incluResultssive or segregated environment had to be confirmed for
his or her performance to be validThe following tables display the
per and relevant to this study. This random place formance and
descriptive statistics for the ment of students also accounted for
variables research questions: Is there a significant other than
environment that could impact difference in the educational
performance of performance such as class size, attendance, 10th
grade students without disabilities who past performance, and
socioeconomic status. learned in an inclusive environment compared
Other variables that were controlled include to the educational
performance of 10th grade significant differences in the teachers
in each students without disabilities who learned in a classroom.
The certification and experience of segregated environment in terms
of the Ohio each teacher as well as confirming the unifor
Graduation Test at ABC High School?mity of the curriculum,
outcomes, and courseTable 2 displays the descriptive statistics
mapping are all important variables that were for the students test
scores for the first re consistent throughout the study.search
question.Data CollectionTable 2. Descriptive Statistics for
SocialThe test scores for the students selectedStudies OGT
Scoresfor the sample were obtained from the Director of Curriculum
and Instruction with theStatistic Segregated Inclusive
Totalpermission of the District Board of Education.
Mean432.25424.52 429.55Then, each students classroom placement
Number (N)114.0061.00 175.00for that school year was attained
through Std. Deviation26.8123.8226.00the guidance office of the
high school. This Minimum374.00369.00 369.00information was used to
determine whether Maximum546.00477.00 546.00the student attended an
inclusive or segreRange172.00108.00177.00gated class for that
content area, which thencorrelates with the given test. These
contentTable 3 shows the results of the indepen areas include
social studies, science, reading, dent samples t Test for
performance of stu and mathematics. All students in the sample
dents from the inclusive environment (experi were assigned random
numbers for reference mental) and segregated environment (control)
purposes to protect their identities.on the social studies section
of the OGT.Data AnalysisThe data was compared using an indepen dent
samples t Test. The alpha level was set at .05. After analysis, the
given p -value was
Performance of Students Without Disabilities in the Inclusive
Environment / 357Table 3: Independent Samples t TestTable 6.
Descriptive Statistics for Results for Social Studies
SubtestMathematics OGT
ScoresVariableNMLevenesStatisticSegregatedInclusiveTotal
Sig*PSegregated 114.00 432.25Mean427.48417.34425.28.514-1.886
.061*Number (N)126.0035.00161.00Inclusive61.00424.52Std.
Deviation22.0518.4821.68*p > .05Minimum374.00389.00
374.00Maximum492.00456.00492.00Table 4 displays the descriptive
statisticsRange118.0067.00118.00for the students test scores for
the secondresearch question.Table 7 shows the results o f the
indepen dent samples t Test for performance of stuTable 4.
Descriptive Statistics for Science dents from the inclusive
environment (experiOGT Scoresmental) and segregated environment
(control) on the mathematics
OGT.StatisticSegregatedInclusiveTotalMean417.66417.42417.57Table 7:
Independent Samples t TestNumber (N)102.0053.00155.00Results for
Mathematics SubtestStd.
Deviation21.8722.2821.94LevenesMinimum373.00375.00373.00VariableNMSigPMaximum495.00464.00495.00Segregated
126.00427.48Range122.0089.00122.00.379-2.487
.014*Inclusive35.00417.34Table 5 shows the results o f the
indepen*p < .05 dent samples t Test for performance of stu-dents
from the inclusive environment (experiTable 8 displays the
descriptive statistics mental) and segregated environment (control)
for the students test scores for the fourth re on the OGT.search
question.Table 5: Independent Samples t TestTable 8. Descriptive
Statistics for Reading Results for Science SubtestOGT
ScoresStatisticSegregatedInclusiveTotalVariableNMLevenesSigPMean424.35423.06424.00Segregated
102.00 417.66Number (N)136.0051.00187.00.900-.065.948*Std.
Deviation
17.0915.2816.59Inclusive53.00417.42Minimum381.00377.00377.00*p >
.05Maximum468.00451.00468.00Table 6 displays the descriptive
statisticsRange87.0074.0091.00for the students test scores for the
third re search question.
358 / Education Vol. 135 No. 3Table 9 shows the results of the
indepenLimitationsdent samples t Test for performance of stuThe
quasi-experimental design does pro dents from the inclusive
environment (experi duce a number of considerations regarding
mental) and segregated environment (control) internal validity.
First, the established, intact on the OGT.groups remove the ability
for the researcher toTable 9: Independent Samples t Testrandomly
assign the participants to the groups. Results for Reading
SubtestThe groups used for this study are a result of the standard
scheduling practices of the ABCVariableNMLevenesCity School
district for the class of 2012. TheSig*Pdata attained merely
results from records reSegregated 136.00 424.35search regarding the
students performance in.502-.474 .636*those already-assigned
groups. This inabilityInclusive 51.00 423.06to assign the groups
establishes a tremendous*p > .05burden on the part of the
researcher to invesAccording to the results, in the areas of
socialtigate and control the extraneous variables for studies,
science, and reading, the /?-value iseach participant. This
includes considering greater than the established alpha of .05;
thereteacher expertise and certification in the given fore, there
was no significant difference in thecontent areas. This also
includes considering performance of the students who learned in
thethe classes in terms of size, attendance, and inclusive
environment versus the segregated enpast performance. For future
studies, noting vironment. In these content areas, students fromthe
specific model of teaching employed in the segregated environment
performed slightlyeach classroom is important as well. In addi
better, but the null hypothesis was not rejected.tion, determining
whether or not the original The results showed a significant
differassignment to an inclusive or segregated en ence in the
performance of the students whovironment for each participant was,
indeed,learned in the inclusive environment versus random is
imperative.the segregated environment in mathematics;This study
requires random classroom as students from the segregated
environmentassignments. If a participant were assigned had a mean
score of 10.14 points higher withto a specific group for a specific
reason, their a /7-value of .014, which is less than the
alpharesponses to the environment would corrupt of .05. Students
from the segregated environthe results. For example, if counselors
be ment performed significantly better, and thelieved that students
with higher IQs may be null hypothesis was rejected.inclined to
help students with disabilities and were subsequently assigned to
the inclusiveDiscussionenvironment at a greater frequency than the
segregated environment, then it would beThis study fulfilled the
purpose of deterinappropriate to compare the educationalmining the
impact of the inclusive environ performance of the students without
disabil ment on the academic performance of 10th ities in the two
environments. Ultimately, the graders for the sample selected.
Results were scores from many students were excluded mixed as no
significant difference in per from this study. Moreover, this study
posed formance was found in the content areas of absolutely no
threat to the well-being of the social studies, science, and
reading. However, students involved; as only a record of their a
significant difference in performance was performance in the
original classroom envi found in the content area of
mathematics.ronment was analyzed. That is, the researcher
Performance of Students Without Disabilities in the Inclusive
Environment / 359had absolutely no impact on the instructiontheir
performance was statistically unaffected or assigning of students
to groups. The stuaccording to this study. Also, the sample and
dents without disabilities were assigned topopulation somewhat
limit the ability to gen their classroom assignments per the
standarderalize the results to the extent that one would scheduling
practices that randomly assignedlike to infer from the study. In
this instance, students without disabilities or any other spea
suburban Southwestern Ohio School rated cial considerations to
either the segregated orExcellent by the state demonstrated little
or inclusive environment.no significant difference in the
performance The integrity of the study was maintainedof students in
the inclusive environment ver throughout by controlling a number of
differsus the segregated environment. Certainly, ent factors that
could threaten the validity ofit could be reasonably expected that
these the study. First, the randomness of the studentresults could
be replicated in similar settings placements was ensured by the
schools utiin schools with similar demographics who lization of a
computer program to randomlyhave constructed content area
departments place those students who did not have specialwith the
degree of uniformity of curriculum placement restrictions into both
the inclusiveand instruction and similar approaches to the and
segregated environments. Next, teacherinclusion of students with
disabilities into thecertification, class size, and curriculum
weregeneral education classroom.all quite consistent. For example,
teachers ofAnother fact worth noting is that mathe the same course
gave common assessmentsmatics was the only content area to register
a to their students at the end of each unit tosignificant
difference in performance between gauge each classs progress in
respect to thethe two groups. Though the difference in per other
classes within the content area.formance was slight, it was
statistically signif However, there were other unavoidableicant.
Another way that the mathematics class aspects of the study that
will need further rees differed from the other three content areas
search for their impact to be fully understood.pertained to course
offerings. While there was First, most students attended a
segregateda great deal of uniformity in the courses for class for
some content areas and an inclusiveeach content area for social
studies, science, class for other content areas. It is plausibleand
reading (American Studies, Biology, and that there could be a
cross-class impact that10th Grade English, respectively), there
were is currently unknown. That is, the fact thatseveral more
classes that had to be considered a student attends an inclusive
science classin order to account for all of the randomly could
impact her performance in her segregatplaced 10th grade students in
mathematics ed reading class. Additionally, the number ofclasses
including Algebra, Geometry, Algebra cases for each environment in
the study wasII, and Pre-Calculus. Further research will be
different. For example, the segregated classesnecessary to
determine exactly what aspect of had 114, 102, 126, and 136 cases
involved inthose inclusive mathematics classes slightlythe study,
while the inclusive classes had 61,negatively impacted student
performance. 53, 35, and 51 cases involved in the study.Science,
social studies, and reading all Further, the topography, methods,
and stylesfailed to register a significant difference in of
instruction within those inclusive classesperformance. At the high
school level, many necessarily varied in accordance to the
needssimilarities could be identified among those of the students
in the classroom. The studentscourses. Whatever aspects of learning
styles, without disabilities are unavoidably impacteduniversal
design, or modifications to that in by varied instructional
practices. However,struction that is occurring, clearly, the
students
360 / Education Vol. 135 No. 3without disabilities seem largely
unaffected. this environment has on the performance of This finding
is consistent with Idols 2006 students without disabilities is
vital to estab study of the impact of schools implementing lishing
the most effective educational strate inclusive policies.gies and
methods for all students.The results of this study also imply
aImplicationsnumber of new quantitative and qualitativeStatistics
regarding how students performquestions that must be answered.
Stake in the inclusive environment are vital to theholders should
note the results of the study various stakeholders involved in
public eduin regards to how very similarly students cation. Parents
of students without disabiliperformed in both environments despite
ties should be interested in such informationthe differing
topography and methods of when they select courses with their
students.instruction between the two groups. In three Teachers
should be interested as they workof the four content areas tested,
student per to adopt the most effective, research-basedformance was
statistically unaffected by the practices in their classrooms.
Administratorsdifferent methods of instruction utilized in and
other school leaders should be interestedthe inclusive classroom.
In addition, student as they design courses as well as
ideologiesperformance was unaffected by the presence for their
schools.and the needs of students with disabilities in Through
established research that disthe inclusive classroom. This idea has
been plays student performance in the incluintimated by researchers
as identified in the sive environment, stakeholders can
makeliterature review, but very rarely explicitly informed
decisions about the educationalstudied or stated. That is, the
presence of methods and environments that they manstudents with
disabilities in the general ed date for their students. As well,
armed withucation classroom and all the differences information
about student performance inimplied by the instruction of such
students the inclusive environment, quantitative rehad little or no
discemable impact on the search can press further into which
aspectsperformance of their non-disabled peers inare particularly
successful with students the classroom.at large and recommend
replication. Then,Thus,when considering appropriate qualitative
research can log the experiencesplacements for students,
stakeholders should and topography of these environments andbe
mindful of the wealth of academic ben methods. This subsequent
research will furefits that students with disabilities gain as ther
refine educational methods, practices,well as the social benefits
that both students and environments.with and students without
disabilities see as a In many instances, the inclusive
environresult of being included into the general edu ment may have
been viewed as merely an accation classroom at, in most cases, no
signif commodation or legal placement regardingicant detriment to
the academic performance the education of students with
disabilities.of those without disabilities who learn in the
However, as those students with disabiliinclusive classroom.
Stakeholders ought to ties are included into the general
educationtake an unwavering stance toward including environment
alongside students withoutstudents with disabilities into the
general eddisabilities, naturally, the environment im ucation
classroom.pacts all students. The nature of this impactIn general,
there is still very little known on student performance across the
board is about the true nature of the impact of the generally
unknown. Knowing the effect that inclusive environment on the
learning of
Performance of Students Without Disabilities in the Inclusive
Environment / 361students for whom participation in that
enReferencesvironment is incidental rather than intended. Ainscow,
M., Booth, T., & Dyson, A. (2004). Understand Developing a more
thorough understandinging and developing inclusive practices in
schools: A o f student learning is essential to
establishcollaborative action research network. International ing
the most appropriate educational methJournal o fInclusive
Education, 8(2), 125-139.ods and environments-especially in light
of Ainscow, M., Farrell, P., Tweddle, D., & Mallei, G.(1999).
The role of LEAs in developing inclusivethe ever-increasing
pressure on stakeholderspolicies and practices. British Journal o f
Specialto elicit greater performance from each stuEducation, 26(3),
136-140.dent. Such understanding must be derived Connor, D. J.,
& Ferri, B. A. (2007). The conflict within: from valid,
appropriate studies that produceResistance to inclusion and other
paradoxes in spe observable and quantifiable evidence.cial
education. Disability & Society, 22(1), 63-77.Crockett, J.
(2002). Special educations role in preparingresponsive leaders for
inclusive schools. Remedial and Special Education, 23(3),
157-168.Farrell, P., Dyson, A., Polat, F., Hutcheson, G., &
Gallan- naugh, F. (2007). The relationship between inclusion and
academic achevement in English mainstream schools. School
Effectiveness and School Improve ment, / 8 , 335-352.Ferguson, D.
L., Desjarlais, A., Meyer, G., (2000). Im proving education: The
promise o f inclusive school ing. Newton, Massachusetts: The
National Institute for Urban School Improvement.Idol, L. (2006).
Toward inclusion of special education students in general
education: A program evaluation of eight schools. Remedial and
Special education, 27(2), 77-94.Villa, R. A. (1992).
Restructuringfor caring and effective education: An administrative
guide to creating het erogeneous schools. Brookes Pub. Co.Lipsky,
D.K., & Gartner, A. (1998). Taking inclusion into the future.
Educational Leadership, 56, 78-81.Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T.
E., Norland, J. J., Berkley, S., McDuffie, K., Tomquist, E. H., et
al. (2006). Differentiated curriculum enhancement in inclusive
middle school science. Journal o f Special Education, 40(2),
130-137.Ohio Department of Education. (2011). Ohio Graduation Tests
interpretive guide educator reports. Columbus, OH: US. Office
ofAssessment.Pcctsma T., Vergeer, M., Roeleveld, J., & Karsten,
S. (2001). Inclusion in education: Comparing pupils development in
special and regular education. Edu cational Review, 50(2),
125-135.Safford, P. L. & Safford, E. J. (Eds.). (2006).
Children with disabilities in America: A historical handbook and
guide. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.Zaretsky, L.
(2005). From practice to theory: Inclusive models require inclusive
theories. American Second ary Education, 33(3), 65-86.
Copyright of Education is the property of Project Innovation,
Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites
or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.