The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
History, Rhetoric, and Reality: Analysis of the Inclusion Debate
Abstract
Issues surrounding the integration of students with disabilities into general education classrooms are explored in this article. The history of this debate is examined first by tracing the movement from mainstreaming and the least restrictive environment in 1975, to the call for a more integrated system during the 1980s under the Regular Education Initiative, and to full inclusion of all students in age-appropriate general education classrooms, with no separate special education. Next, the research investigating perceptions and attitudes about inclusion, the tenor of the general education classroom, and the preparation and ability of general education teachers to deal effectively with special education students is summarized. Finally, the dissonance between rhetoric and reality is explored. By ignoring research evidence, the inclusion debate has elevated discussion to the ideological level, where competing conflicts of vision are difficult to resolve. It is concluded that a rational solution requires the consideration of all forms of evidence if the best possible education for all students with disabilities is to be achieved.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: Philosophical Papers
Lakatos, I. (1978) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511621123 · Cited by 3,045
How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement
Jensen, A. (1969) · Harvard Educational Review · doi:10.17763/haer.39.1.l3u15956627424k7 · Cited by 2,907 · cited 1×
“Later, Harwood ( 1976, 1977) found a similar political dichotomy among those who either supported or objected to the position proposed by Jensen (1969), which suggested that the 15 IQ-point advantage for Whites over Blacks was about 80% due to heredity and only about 20% a result of environment.”
BackgroundBridging the Research-to-Practice Gap
Carnine, D. (1997) · Exceptional Children · doi:10.1177/001440299706300406 · Cited by 384
Cited by
Universal Design and Its Applications in Educational Environments
Mcguire, J. M., Scott, S. S., & Shaw, S. F. (2006) · Remedial and Special Education · doi:10.1177/07419325060270030501 · Cited by 295
Romi, S., & Leyser, Y. (2006) · European Journal of Special Needs Education · doi:10.1080/08856250500491880 · Cited by 225
Aiming for Equity: Preparing Mainstream Teachers for Inclusion or Inclusive Classrooms?
Coady, M. R., Harper, C., & de Jong, E. J. (2016) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.1002/tesq.223 · Cited by 153
Assessing pre-service teachers' training in empirically-validated behavioral instruction practices.
Begeny, J. C., & Martens, B. K. (2006) · School Psychology Quarterly · doi:10.1521/scpq.2006.21.3.262 · Cited by 148
Sisto, M., Pérez-Fuentes, M. D. C., Gázquez-Linares, J. J., & Molero-Jurado, M. D. M. (2021) · Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado · doi:10.6018/reifop.397841 · Cited by 29
Metadata
- Authors
- Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R.
- Venue
- Remedial and Special Education
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2000-09
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 279-296
- ISSN
- 0741-9325 (ISSN-L)
- 1538-4756
- OpenAlex
- W2168671220
- Cited by
- 358
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 42.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: History, Rhetoric, and Reality: Analysis of the Inclusion Debate. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/074193250002100505
- The paper
- Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (2000). History, Rhetoric, and Reality: Analysis of the Inclusion Debate. Remedial and Special Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193250002100505
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.