ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITHOUT

DISABILITIES IN THE INCLUSIVE ENVIRONMENT

J a s o n D. F r

ut h

Wright State University

M e l a n ie N . W oo d s

Wright State University

This 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.

Introduction

offer appropriate supports provided free of

charge to those who have been identified as
Researchers, advocates, and theorists
having a disability in accordance with case
agree that students with disabilities learn best
law and the Individuals with Disabilities
in the inclusive environment alongside their
Education Act (P.L. 94-142, Section 1412 [5]
peers (Idol, 2006; Kune, 1992; Zaretsky,
[B]). This environment involves differenti
2005). Provisions o f the Individuals with
ated instruction, leveled activities, or even
Disabilities Education Act stipulate that stu
multiple professionals in the same classroom
dents with disabilities must be educated in
at a time. Thus, the experience of a student in
their least restrictive environment (P.L. 94an inclusive classroom is inherently different
142, Section 1412 [5] [B]). As well, a team
from a student in a segregated classroom.
o f individuals including parents, teachers, and
Researchers such as Idol (2006) and Far
administrators must agree to any deviation
rell, Dyson, Polat, Hutcheson, and Gallanfrom that placement.
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
ronment. According to Idol, standardized test
side in the same classroom. These classrooms
scores generally increased or were unchanged

351

352 / Education Vol. 135 No. 3

after an inclusion policy was implemented. performance in light of high-stakes testing,

This is quite significant, as the students who identifying each predictor for student suc
cess is vital. Therefore, identifying environ
were introduced to the classroom were stu
dents with disabilities, and generally had low ments in which students are learning best
er academic ability levels than the students would prove valuable to stakeholders. As
well, subsequent research regarding support
they were joining in the inclusive classroom.
or justifications for aspects of the inclusive
Advocates also point to accepted edu
cational theories to show that students with environment will help refine the practice of
disabilities benefit from the inclusive environ teachers in every environment. To this point,
the inclusive environment has gained
ment. According to Kune (in Villa, Thousand,
favor Stainback and Stainback,1992), the inclusive
and been mandated as a basis
for the edu environment more closely meets students cation of students with disabilities
as noted needs in accordance with Maslows hierarchy.
in its requirement of
the least restrictive The segregated environment inappropriately
environment
provision of the Individuals places achievement before belonging. That is,
with
Disabilities Education Act (P.L. 94- students must achieve in the segregated envi
142, Section 1412 [5] [B]). The inclusive
environment has been generally accepted
ronment before they can belong in the general
as environment. According to Kune, proponents
increasing the educational performance
and of the inclusive environment understand that
social experience of students
ties. However, an
with disabili students must know that they belong before
experiment measuring the they can achieve. performance of students without disabilities
A number of factors could be responsible in the inclusive environment compared to a
control group of their peers in the
for the increase in performance of students
segregat with disabilities in the inclusive environment.
ed environment is
necessary. Then, further Teachers who succeed in the inclusive envi
analysis of the
environment can take place ronment utilize superior teaching strategies
to
identify those aspects that this unique en such as team- or co-teaching, universal design,
vironment provides that benefits all students.
The inclusive environment represents a
and differentiated instruction. According to
Ferguson, Desjarlais, and Meyer (2000), these change for how students with and without
disabilities have historically learned.
along with other evidenced-based strategies
This uniquely equip the inclusive environment for environment has the intent to embrace
all student success. Further research is necessary
students and meet their
According to Lipsky
educational needs. to determine which of these numerous strat
and Gartner (1998); egies and methods impact learning the most
Connor and Ferri
(2007), increasing the per within the environment.
formance of students with
disabilities and However, little research has been carried differences requires a
restructuring of the out that displays the impact of the inclusive
practice and
approach of education -not ad environment as an educational method, strat dressing students
a
with differences as a part of egy, or treatment for students who have not
separate system. Lipsky and Gartner go on been identified as having a disability. It is
to assert, A dual system of education fails not
all students, primarily those with disabili
known how students without disabilities
perform in the inclusive environment whereties. As well, separation is costly, a civil
students with disabilities are present, active rights violation, and a cause for limited out
comes for students with disabilities (p. 78).
members in the learning process.
The
authors assert that under this inclusive
As schools seek to maximize student

Performance of Students Without Disabilities in the Inclusive Environment / 353

model, the services and nature of the schools of labeling, segregation, and exclusion of the
are in need of improvement-not further clas past. Authors such as Lipsky (2005) claim that
sifying its students who are suffering under such a system fosters the growth and develop
the schools care. Further, including students ment of each student to his or her potential
with differences ought to be a part of a model
regardless of ability or disability.
According system of school improvement. According
to Lipsky (2005), such a
clude strong
system should in to Lipsky and Gartner (1998), school im
leadership, quality teachers, provement with a foundation of including
challenging curriculum, differentiated in all
students incorporates an end to labeling
struction, careful and regular assessments,
students and shutting them out of the regular engagement of parents and community, and
classroom to obtain needed services (p. 81). a focus on the meeting of standards and the
Often miscommunication among pol
achievement of outcomes (p. 156). Similarly,
icy-makers such as government officials, Crockett (2002) claims, What schools really
administrators, school boards, and local require are responsive leaders-knowledgeeducational associations leads to confusion able persons in positions of influence who are
and mismanagement at the classroom lev
committed to ensuring contexts that support
el. According to Ainscow, Farrell, Tweddle learning for each and every student (p. 157).
and Malki (1999), Within the data, it was
Several studies have gathered evidence
apparent that there was general support forregarding performance in the inclusive en
inclusive education but enormous differences
vironment. Farrell, et al. (2007) studied
the of opinion about LEA inclusion policies and relationship between the inclusion of
students what they might involve (p. 2). The differ
with disabilities and academic
achievement in ing agendas of the various stakeholders could
primary and secondary
schools in England. place teachers and parents in a precarious They examined
several
academic performance at position regarding how their student will
traditional benchmarks and sought a receive the best education. In another study,
relationship between that performance and
Ainscow, Booth, and Dyson (2004), identify the level of inclusiveness at that school. First,
the different pressures and the nature of the they 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 con
the performance of a rather segregated group
sistent dialogue between principals, parents, (or group without students with disabilities)
and teachers as problematic to orchestrating could not be statistically distinguished from
a successful environment. Perpetuating an a more inclusive group- which of course in
us versus them division between scholars cluded students of more varying ability. The
in special education and disability studies is authors show the miniscule impact of includ
counterproductive and damaging to attempts
ing a great number of students in the
district, by practitioners to attend to multiple interests
in showing that introducing
students eligible and ways ofknowing (p. 82). Such examples
for a free school
meal had 15.54 times more highlight the difficulties associated with put negative impact
on student scores than the ting theory into practice in regard to creating introduction of
Thus, they concluded that
students with special needs. an inclusive environment.
schools should not Constructing a new educational envi
worry about the inclusive
environment nega ronment with such bold aspirations would
tively impacting the
performance of students
certainly require a shift from the dual system without disabilities.

354 / Education Vol. 135 No. 3

average student statewide test scores over a

In a four-year study, Peetsma, Vergeer,
four-year period (Idol, 2006, p. 89).
Roeleveld, and Karsten (2001) measured the
Idol (2006) stated, One of the biggest
performance of matched pairs of pupils one in a mainstream school and the other in concerns of many educators and the general
public is the possible adverse effect that the
a special school. They determined, At-risk
presence of student with disabilities in the
pupils in regular education made more prog
ress in mathematics than pupils in schools general education classroom might have on
the statewide testing results of other students
for pupils with (learning or behavior difficul
(p. 93). Such data should go a long way to
ties). As well, Pupils cognitive develop
dispelling such myths and opening up optimal
ment in regular education was significantly
educational experiences for all students based
stronger (p. 130). Mastropieri et al. (2006)
found similar results in a study involving
on practical evidence.
In summary, there is considerably more
traditional versus collaborative educational
approaches in the inclusive science class research that focuses on students with disabil
ities, and less for students without disabilities
room. According to the authors, Students in
that are in the inclusive environment. The
inclusive science classes can work with each
purpose of this study, then, is to examine the
other in critical content areas, and when they
academic performance of high school students
do so, their content area learning improves
without disabilities who are learning in inclu
at a rate greater than that attained through
sive environments. The outcome of the present
instruction that is more traditional (p. 136).
study contributes to the on-going dialogue
Idol (2006) published perhaps the most
comprehensive study on inclusive environ regarding the most effective environments,
ments. Idol found in a study of inclusivestrategies, and methods for student learning.
The research question guiding this study:
elementary schools that a majority of the
Are there significant differences in the
teachers reported that the performance of
educational performance - measured by
students without disabilities improved or was
Social Studies, Science, Mathematics, and
unaffected by the presence of students with
Reading - of 10th grade students without
disabilities in the classroom. Similarly, a ma
jority also reported that having students with disabilities in inclusive versus segregated
learning environments?
disabilities in the classroom either increased
test scores of the students without disabilities
Methods
or scores remained about the same. To sum
up, These data provide evidence that the Research Design
presence of students with disabilities in the
For this group comparison study, a post
general education program had not been dele test only, quasi-experimental design was
terious to the test performance of the general
utilized to assess the differences in the per
education students (p. 85).
formance of two distinct, mutually exclusive
Idol (2006) found similar results in a study
groups: 10th grade students without disabili
of 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 / 355

Setting

performance, or socioeconomic status do not

skew the performance of a particular class
According to the Ohio Department of
room.
Thus, scores from students who were
Education School Year Report Cards, the
high school achieved an Excellent rating placed in a classroom for a particular subject
by non-random means were excluded from
for three years prior to this study. This des
the study. Administrative placements, paren
ignation indicated that the school achieved
a satisfactory number of indicators that the tal requests, and students with disabilities are
all examples of individual student placements
school made progress toward Adequate
that were non-random. Also excluded from
Yearly Progress. Table 1 shows demographic
the study were entire classrooms made up of
data of the district studied compared to state
students whose placement was non-random.
of Ohio averages.
For example, resource classrooms made up
only of students with disabilities and honors
Table 1. Study District and State of Ohio
classrooms made up of students who had to
Average Demographics
meet certain criteria and be approved for were
not appropriate for the study as their place
Enrollment Poverty LEP Disabilities
ment was not random. For this reason, the
District
3,513
30.9%
0.2% 15.4%
number of scores for each research question
ABC
and
subject area does not equal 203.
Ohio
Average

2,679

Participants

34.1%

3.4%

13.3%

Measures

The data for this study was provided

from the results of the Ohio Graduation Test
In this study, the target population was
the class of 2012 at a suburban Southwest (OGT). According to the Ohio Department ern
of Education, the OGT is a criterion-refer
Ohio High School. O f these 10th grade
students, the performance of two distinct, enced assessment based on the Ohio Content
mutually exclusive groups was assessed: Standards that ensures students who graduate
and receive a diploma from a school in the
10th grade students without disabilities who
learned in an inclusive environment and state of Ohio achieve at least minimum stan
dards in the content areas - reading, science,
10th grade students without disabilities who
learned in a segregated environment. For mathematics, and social studies assessments.
this study, 203 students met the criteria for Roughly 145,000 students took the assess
examination. That is, 203 students could be ment in 2010 - the year this study took place
identified as 10th grade students for the first (Ohio Department of Education, 2011).
time and were taking the OGT for the first
Students begin taking the OGT in the
time. Further, these 203 members of the
10th grade. Each content area test consists of
2012 graduating class had not been identi
multiple-choice and written response ques
fied as having a disability or have any other tions from which a raw score is formed. A
scaled score is then derived from the raw
special placement requests or designations
score on each test so as to allow for reporting
that kept them from being placed in either a
segregated or inclusive classroom randomly.
and comparison between different adminis
Naturally, the randomness of each stu
trations within each content area. For this
dents placement is essential to the compari
reason, comparisons across content areas are
not appropriate.
son study as it ensures that variables attribut
ed to each student such as attendance, past

356 / Education Vol. 135 No. 3

Variables

compared to the alpha of .05. If the p-value

is less than the alpha of .05, then the output
is statistically significant and determines

Variables that were controlled include

several realities of the environment that could
whether to accept or reject the null hypothe pling.
limit the study due to the convenience sam
sis of no significant difference existing in the in
These include significant differences
the
educational performance of students from the non-random
students involved in each class due toinclusive
and
segregated
environments.
placement. The randomness of
each students placement in either the inclu
sive or segregated environment had to be con

Results

The following tables display the per

firmed for his or her performance to be valid
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
Graduation Test at ABC High School?
each teacher as well as confirming the unifor
Table 2 displays the descriptive statistics
mity of the curriculum, outcomes, and course
for
the students test scores for the first re
mapping are all important variables that were
search question.
consistent throughout the study.
Data Collection

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for Social

Studies OGT Scores
The test scores for the students selected
for the sample were obtained from the Di
Segregated Inclusive
Total
Statistic
rector of Curriculum and Instruction with the
432.25
424.52
429.55
Mean
permission of the District Board of Education.
Number (N)
114.00
61.00
175.00
Then, each students classroom placement
for that school year was attained through
26.00
Std. Deviation
26.81
23.82
the guidance office of the high school. This
369.00
Minimum
374.00
369.00
information was used to determine whether
546.00
477.00
546.00
Maximum
the student attended an inclusive or segre
108.00
177.00
Range
172.00
gated class for that content area, which then
correlates with the given test. These content
Table 3 shows the results of the indepen
and
areas include social studies, science, reading,
dent
samples
t Test for performance of stuwere
mathematics. All students in the sample
assigned random numbers for referencedents from the inclusive environment (experi
mental) and segregated environment (control)
purposes to protect their identities.
on the social studies section of the OGT.
Data Analysis
The 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 / 357

Table 3: Independent Samples t Test

Results for Social Studies Subtest
Variable
Segregated

N
M
114.00 432.25

Inclusive

61.00

Levenes
Sig
.514

Table 6. Descriptive Statistics for

Mathematics OGT Scores

-1.886 .061*

424.52

*p > .05
Table 4 displays the descriptive statistics
for the students test scores for the second
research question.

Table 4. Descriptive Statistics for Science

OGT Scores
Statistic
Mean

Segregated
417.66

Inclusive
417.42

Total
417.57

Number (N)

102.00

53.00

155.00

Std. Deviation

21.87

22.28

21.94

Minimum

373.00

375.00

373.00

Maximum

495.00

464.00

495.00

Range

122.00

89.00

122.00

Statistic
Mean

Segregated
427.48

Inclusive
417.34

Total
425.28

Number (N)

126.00

35.00

161.00
21.68

Std. Deviation

22.05

18.48

Minimum

374.00

389.00

374.00

Maximum

492.00

456.00

492.00

Range

118.00

67.00

118.00

Table 7 shows the results o f the

dent samples t Test for performance
dents from the inclusive environment
mental) and segregated environment
on the mathematics OGT.

indepen
of stu
(experi
(control)

Table 7: Independent Samples t Test

Results for Mathematics Subtest
Variable

Levenes
Sig

Segregated 126.00 427.48

.379
Inclusive

35.00

-2.487 .014*

417.34

*p < .
Table 5 shows the results o f the indepen
05 dent samples t Test for performance of stuTable 8 displays the descriptive statistics
dents from the inclusive environment (experi
for
the
students test scores for the fourth re on
mental) and segregated environment (control)
search
question.
the OGT.

Table 8. Descriptive Statistics for Reading

OGT Scores

Table 5: Independent Samples t Test

Results for Science Subtest
Variable
Segregated

Sig

102.00 417.66
.900

Inclusive

Statistic

Levenes

53.00

-.065

.948*

417.42

*p > .05
Table 6 displays the descriptive statistics
for the students test scores for the third re
search question.

Segregated

Inclusive

Total

Mean

424.35

423.06

Number (N)

136.00

51.00

187.00

Std. Deviation

17.09

15.28

16.59

Minimum

381.00

377.00

377.00

Maximum

468.00

451.00

468.00

Range

87.00

74.00

91.00

424.00

358 / Education Vol. 135 No. 3

Table 9 shows the results of the indepen
Limitations
dent samples t Test for performance of stu
The 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 to
randomly assign the participants to the groups.
Table 9: Independent Samples t Test
The groups used for this study are a result of
Results for Reading Subtest
the standard scheduling practices of the ABC
Levenes
City School district for the class of 2012. The
Variable
N
M
Sig
*
P
data attained merely results from records re
Segregated 136.00 424.35
search regarding the students performance in
.502
-.474 .636*
those already-assigned groups. This inability
51.00 423.06
Inclusive
to assign the groups establishes a tremendous
*p > .05
burden on the part of the researcher to inves
and control the extraneous variables for
According to the results, in the areas of social tigate
each participant. This includes considering
studies, science, and reading, the /?-value is teacher expertise and certification in the given
greater than the established alpha of .05; there
content areas. This also includes considering
fore, there was no significant difference in the the classes in terms of size, attendance, and
performance of the students who learned in the past performance. For future studies, noting
inclusive environment versus the segregated en
the specific model of teaching employed
vironment.
In these content areas, students from
in
each classroom is important as well. In
addi the segregated environment performed slightly
tion, determining whether or not
better,
but
the
null
hypothesis
was
not
rejected.
the original
assignment to an inclusive or
The results showed a significant differ
segregated en
vironment for each
ence in the performance of the students who
random is imperative. participant was, indeed,
learned in the inclusive environment versus
This study requires random classroom
the segregated environment in mathematics;
assignments. If a participant were assigned
as students from the segregated environment to a specific group for a specific reason, their
had a mean score of 10.14 points higher with responses to the environment would corrupt
a /7-value of .014, which is less than the alpha
the results. For example, if counselors be
of .05. Students from the segregated environ
lieved that students with higher IQs may be
ment performed significantly better, and the
inclined to help students with disabilities and
null hypothesis was rejected.
were subsequently assigned to the inclusive
environment at a greater frequency than the
Discussion
segregated environment, then it would be
This study fulfilled the purpose of deter
inappropriate to compare the educational
mining the impact of the inclusive environ
ment
performance
of the students without disabil
on the academic performance of 10th
ities in the two environments. Ultimately,mixed
the graders
as no
for the sample selected. Results were scores from many students were excluded
significant difference in per
formance was found
in the content areas of from this study. Moreover, this study posed
absolutely
no
threat
to
the
well-being
of
the
social
studies,
science,
and reading. However,
a significant
difference
students involved; as only a record of their
found in the content area of
in performance was performance in the original classroom envi
mathematics.
ronment was analyzed. That is, the researcher

Performance of Students Without Disabilities in the Inclusive Environment / 359

had absolutely no impact on the instruction their performance was statistically unaffected or
assigning of students to groups. The stu
according to this study. Also, the sample and
dents without disabilities were assigned to population somewhat limit the ability to gen
their classroom assignments per the standard eralize the results to the extent that one would
scheduling practices that randomly assigned like to infer from the study. In this instance,
students without disabilities or any other spe
a suburban Southwestern Ohio School rated
cial considerations to either the segregated or Excellent by the state demonstrated little or
inclusive environment.
no significant difference in the performance
The integrity of the study was maintained
of students in the inclusive environment ver
throughout by controlling a number of differ
sus the segregated environment. Certainly,
ent factors that could threaten the validity of it could be reasonably expected that these
the study. First, the randomness of the student
results could be replicated in similar settings
placements was ensured by the schools uti
in schools with similar demographics who
lization of a computer program to randomly
have constructed content area departments
place those students who did not have special with the degree of uniformity of curriculum
placement restrictions into both the inclusive and instruction and similar approaches to the
and segregated environments. Next, teacher
inclusion of students with disabilities into the
certification, class size, and curriculum were general education classroom.
all quite consistent. For example, teachers of
Another fact worth noting is that mathe
the same course gave common assessments matics was the only content area to register a
to their students at the end of each unit to significant difference in performance between
gauge each classs progress in respect to the the two groups. Though the difference in per
other classes within the content area.
formance was slight, it was statistically signif
However, there were other unavoidable
icant. Another way that the mathematics class
aspects of the study that will need further re
es 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 segregated a great deal of uniformity in the courses for
class for some content areas and an inclusive
each content area for social studies, science,
class for other content areas. It is plausible and reading (American Studies, Biology, and
that there could be a cross-class impact that 10th Grade English, respectively), there were
is currently unknown. That is, the fact that several more classes that had to be considered
a student attends an inclusive science class in order to account for all of the randomly
could impact her performance in her segregat
placed 10th grade students in mathematics
ed reading class. Additionally, the number of classes including Algebra, Geometry, Algebra
cases for each environment in the study was II, and Pre-Calculus. Further research will be
different. For example, the segregated classes
necessary to determine exactly what aspect of
had 114, 102, 126, and 136 cases involved in
those inclusive mathematics classes
slightly
the 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 styles
failed to register a significant difference in
of instruction within those inclusive classes
performance. At the high school level, many
necessarily varied in accordance to the needs
similarities could be identified among those
of the students in the classroom. The students
courses. Whatever aspects of learning styles,
without disabilities are unavoidably impacted
universal design, or modifications to that in
by varied instructional practices. However,
struction that is occurring, clearly, the students

360 / Education Vol. 135 No. 3

without 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
gies and methods for all students.
inclusive policies.
The results of this study also imply a
Implications
number of new quantitative and qualitative
Statistics regarding how students perform questions that must be answered. Stake
in the inclusive environment are vital to the holders should note the results of the study
in regards to how very similarly students
various stakeholders involved in public edu
performed
in both environments despite
cation. Parents of students without disabili
ties should be interested in such information the 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 work of the four content areas tested, student per
to adopt the most effective, research-based formance was statistically unaffected by the
practices in their classrooms. Administrators different methods of instruction utilized in
and other school leaders should be interested the inclusive classroom. In addition, student
as they design courses as well as ideologies performance was unaffected by the presence
and the needs of students with disabilities in
for their schools.
the inclusive classroom. This idea has been
Through established research that dis
plays student performance in the inclu intimated by researchers as identified in the
sive environment, stakeholders can make literature review, but very rarely explicitly
informed decisions about the educational studied or stated. That is, the presence of
methods and environments that they man students with disabilities in the general ed
date for their students. As well, armed with ucation classroom and all the differences
information about student performance inimplied by the instruction of such students the
had little or no discemable impact on the
inclusive environment, quantitative re
search can press further into which aspects performance of their non-disabled peers in
the classroom.
are particularly successful with students
Thus, when considering appropriate
at large and recommend replication. Then,
qualitative research can log the experiences placements for students, stakeholders should
and topography of these environments and be mindful of the wealth of academic ben
methods. This subsequent research will fur efits that students with disabilities gain as
ther refine educational methods, practices, well as the social benefits that both students
with and students without disabilities see as a
and environments.
result of being included into the general edu
In many instances, the inclusive environ
ment may have been viewed as merely an ac cation classroom at, in most cases, no signif
commodation or legal placement regarding icant detriment to the academic performance
the education of students with disabilities. of those without disabilities who learn in the
However, as those students with disabili inclusive classroom. Stakeholders ought to
take an unwavering stance toward
ties are included into the general education
including environment alongside students without
students with disabilities
into the general ed
ucation classroom.
disabilities, naturally, the environment im
In general, there is still very little known
pacts all students. The nature of this impact
on student performance across the board is about the true nature of the impact of the
inclusive environment on the learning of
generally unknown. Knowing the effect that

Performance of Students Without Disabilities in the Inclusive Environment / 361

students for whom participation in that en
References
vironment is incidental rather than intended. Ainscow, M., Booth, T., & Dyson, A. (2004). Understand
Developing a more thorough understanding
ing and developing inclusive practices in schools: A
collaborative action research network. International
o f student learning is essential to establish
Journal o fInclusive Education, 8(2), 125-139.
ing the most appropriate educational meth
Ainscow, M., Farrell, P., Tweddle, D., & Mallei, G.
(1999). The role of LEAs in developing inclusive
policies and practices. British Journal o f Special
to elicit greater performance from each stu
Education, 26(3), 136-140.
dent. Such understanding must be derived Connor, D. J., & Ferri, B. A. (2007). The conflict within:
Resistance to inclusion and other paradoxes in spe
from valid, appropriate studies that produce
cial education. Disability & Society, 22(1), 63-77.
observable and quantifiable evidence.
Crockett, J. (2002). Special educations role in preparing
responsive 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., Berk
ley, 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.

ods and environments-especially in light of

the ever-increasing pressure on stakeholders

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.