BY: Mike DiMatteo
It is one of the more controversial topics in education today, and has been so for a long time. To broach the topic of inclusion in the classroom, especially if one is not in favor of it, is to invite not only opposition, but often vitriol from others in the teaching profession, as well as many parents whose kids are classified as special ed.
Taking a stance against inclusion signals to some that the individual lacks compassion, or is an “ableist,” a term meant to demean those whose positions seem to discriminate against people with disabilities. Those who don’t believe inclusion in the classroom should be the norm are often ostracized by colleagues, not to mention finding themselves at odds with federal law which mandates inclusion.
But if looked at objectively, there is a strong case for inclusion to be either limited or, at the very least, rethought. Few people in or out of education can look at inclusion without emotion, and emotional involvement clouds objectivity.
The attempt here is to give a rational, experience-based analysis of inclusion and why it needs to be reconsidered.
Academic Impact on Non-Disabled Peers
There are a number of studies that indicate negative academic impact on non-disabled peers when inclusion is the norm. Researchers use the term “spillover effect” to describe it. These effects are usually modest but concentrated, with the strongest impact when students with emotional or behavioral disorders (EBD) are included, not students with physical disabilities.
In 2010, J.M. Fletcher found that kindergarten and first-grade students had lower test scores when they shared classrooms with peers who had emotional or behavioral disorders:
“Cross-sectional results suggest that having a classmate with an emotional problem decreases reading and math scores at the end of kindergarten and first grade by over 10 percent of a standard deviation, which is one-third to one-half of the minority test-score gap.”
Other studies, including work by Gottfried, found that non-disabled students sometimes mirrored the behaviors of their peers with EBD, resulting in lower test scores and more absences. Gottfried wrote:
“Students with a greater number of classmates with disabilities have higher externalizing and internalizing behavioral problems and lower frequencies of self-control, approaches to learning, and interpersonal skills.”
Both studies show that inclusion, especially when it involves students with EBD, can negatively affect classmates. This is particularly concerning given the link to absenteeism:
“Young children without disabilities who shared a classroom with pupils who have emotional or behavioral disabilities had more absences, lower math and reading scores in kindergarten and 1st grade…”
Some negative effects can be reduced with experienced teachers and strong administrative support. But with so many teachers leaving the profession and an influx of inexperienced replacements, it’s fair to say that inclusion with EBD students is straining the system more than ever.
Challenges for Teachers and Instruction
One of the hardest parts of teaching today is planning lessons for both “regular ed” students and those with a wide range of disabilities. Inclusion makes that workload even heavier. Many general education teachers are not trained to handle the specific needs they see daily. That creates anxiety, frustration, and burnout — one of the top reasons teachers walk away.
This is especially true in the lower grades, where teachers are expected to manage EBD students who can derail a class. “Clearing out” a classroom while one student has a crisis is becoming more common, and some teachers have resigned on the spot after being pushed to that point.
Special education teachers don’t fare much better. They’re stretched across multiple classrooms, carrying overwhelming caseloads, buried in paperwork, and often without strong administrative backing. Burnout is almost inevitable
A 2019 Education Week survey confirmed what many of us already knew:
“Less than 1 in 5 general education teachers feel ‘very well prepared’ to teach students with mild to moderate learning disabilities… only 30 percent feel ‘strongly’ that they can successfully teach students with learning disabilities… Many teachers reported they were not required to take courses in working with students with disabilities or found that the courses they did take left them unprepared…”
As a former classroom teacher, I saw this firsthand as IEPs and 504s increased year after year. For new teachers, the accommodations required by law often created as many classroom challenges as they solved.
A 2021 Frontiers in Education article put it plainly:
“Class size poses a serious challenge to teachers who are not well trained when they have learners with disabilities (LwDs) in large classes. Teachers struggle to manage average teacher–learner ratios and curriculum demands in inclusive settings.”
Add to that the reality of underfunded schools, and it’s no wonder both students and teachers fall short. Inclusion demands more staff, more training, and more infrastructure — and when those aren’t provided, everybody loses.
Potential Harm to Students with Disabilities
It’s often assumed that students with disabilities automatically benefit from inclusion. That isn’t always true. Placing students with EBD or significant cognitive disabilities in general classrooms without the right support can backfire. They may not get the targeted instruction they need, and in the process, they risk falling further behind.
Some students have reported feeling isolated or misunderstood in inclusive settings. That doesn’t mean this happens to all, but it does show that inclusion is not automatically synonymous with belonging.
Systemic and Policy Issues
A comprehensive review by Fuchs and colleagues (2025) cautioned that, despite decades of research, “the academic benefits of including students with disabilities in general education classrooms are not settled science,” and suggested that for many learners, “a separate setting … might be the best way to get the instruction they need.”
The same review concluded that “it’s unclear where students with disabilities learn the most,” stressing that interventions should be tailored to the individual rather than driven by policy alone. It’s true that some studies document social benefits when inclusion is well-supported, but the overall picture is mixed.
Policy pressure also skews the issue. Parents, understandably eager to see their children included, sometimes push for placements without realizing that the necessary supports aren’t there. Hope, fear of stigma, or misunderstanding can unintentionally block their child from getting the specialized help they need.
The result: students are placed where they are least likely to succeed, leaving both them and their peers underserved.
Solutions
There are steps that can ease these challenges:
- Thoughtful Placement
Students with significant behavioral needs should not automatically be placed in general education settings. Each case must be evaluated, and inclusion should only happen if proper supports are available. - Specialized Training and Support
Students with intensive needs require instruction from trained professionals. General education teachers must also receive consistent training. Better support systems not only help students but also keep teachers in the profession. however, such training simply added to an already cluttered classroom teacher’s plate and may contribute to teacher burnout. - Adequate Funding
Schools need more resources: smaller class sizes, more support staff, and access to specialists. State laws must also allow flexibility so students are placed where they can best thrive — and sometimes that will not be in a general education classroom.
These are not easy solutions, but they are necessary. If we want inclusion to mean more than a slogan, we must back it up with resources, training, and flexibility.
Final Takeaway
Inclusion is not inherently wrong, but neither is it the right answer for every student, including the regular ed student. The real goal is outcomes, not ideology. Students should be placed where they can flourish academically and socially, and teachers deserve the tools to make that happen. Rethinking inclusion with flexibility and honesty is the only way to serve everyone in the classroom.
