










































ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 39, ISSUE 1 (2018) 

  
 

65 
 

 

 

 

 
Unintended Lessons: What Typically Developing Students Learn 

from the Inclusion and Exclusion of Students Who Receive Special 
Education Services 

 
 
Carol Hines 

 
Introduction 

 
ne of the hallmarks of the public education system in the United States is its diversity. While 
in other countries, students are segregated in academic and vocational tracks, in the US 
students commonly attend the schools in their neighborhood with other students from the 

neighborhood.  In 1954, the Supreme Court struck down the idea of separate but equal in Brown v. 
The Board of Education and mandated that schools be desegregated.  In 1975, Public Law 92-142 
mandated the free appropriate public education (FAPE) to students with disabilities. Subsequent 
legislation (IDEA-1997, IDEA-2004) has specified that students with disabilities are to be educated in 
the least restrictive environment (LRE). LRE means that, to the maximum extent appropriate, school 
districts must educate students with disabilities in the regular classroom with appropriate aids and 
supports, along with their nondisabled peers in the school they would attend if they were not 
disabled. The first placement that must be considered is the general education classroom alongside 
typically developing peers. It is only if this placement is deemed to be ineffective that segregation is to 
be considered.  
 
 Demographic studies suggest that most students with disabilities are receiving at least 80% of 
their education in general education classrooms. However, there are still many districts that interpret 
LRE in a broader sense, and routinely segregate students with disabilities. Disability activists such as 
Gallagher (2006), Naraian (2017), Valle & Connor (2010), Danforth & Gabel (2006), Kliewer (2014), 
and Gabel & Connor (2014) have argued for broadening the policy of including students with special 
education needs in the same classroom as their typically developing peers: a philosophy known as 
inclusion. While these scholars agree that inclusion is a good idea, the term inclusion can be defined 
in many different ways.  
 

When PL 94-142 was first enacted, having students with disabilities in their neighborhood 
school was considered inclusion, even if they were segregated into a separate class. Currently, students 
with disabilities can be placed in general education classrooms, but may spend their day working with 
an instructional assistant on a separate curriculum and have little interaction with their peers. For 
example, while the general education students work on multiplying fractions, the student with 

O 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 39, ISSUE 1 (2018) 

  
 

66 
 

 

 

 

disabilities works in the back of the room with an assistant placing four plastic counting bears on a 
large numeral 4. Other students may be placed in general education classrooms, but receive a majority 
of their services in a pull out model, meaning that they are absent from the classrooms for a part of the 
day. Finally, some schools define inclusion as having students with disabilities attend assemblies and 
non-academic subjects with their typically developing peers. Debates continue to rage about whether 
students who receive special education services are better placed in full inclusion or in a separate 
placement. Many also question whether having special education students in the general education 
classroom helps or harms the progress of the typically developing students (Cosier, 2014: Brantlinger, 
2006; Gallagher, 2006; Rice, 2006).  My purpose in this paper is not to recount or weigh in on those 
debates, but rather to pose the question of how typically developing students’ views on society may 
differ depending upon their experience with inclusive or segregated special education placements. 

 
I borrow the concept of unintended consequences from the study of social policies that 

indicate that solving one problem can cause unanticipated other problems. In his seminal work, 
Robert Merton (1936) refers to “purposive social action” (p. 894). As it relates to this topic, the 
purposive social action is the mandating of public education for students with disabilities in the least 
restrictive environment. I propose that the purpose of this social action was to move us toward a 
society that is more inclusive of people with disabilities. I question whether, in our move toward 
inclusion, we are actually teaching some of our typically developing students that people with 
disability are not includable?  

 
 I will begin by describing two different educational settings with which I am familiar. In the 
first setting, students with disabilities received their special education services in a separate classroom 
called a special day class (SDC). In the second scenario, students with disabilities receive their special 
education services in a classroom with their typically developing peers.  I will go on to describe the 
theoretical foundations for each of these placement models, and finally examine the unintended 
lessons that could emerge in these two settings. Finally, I explore the ways these unintended lessons 
might change the students’ view of society outside of the school setting. 
 

Two Scenarios 
 

 Allow me to begin by explaining my connection to the following two settings. I was a teacher 
at Jefferson Elementary school for six years. The classroom I describe is my own. I became familiar 
with Crafton Elementary in multiple visits in my role as a university clinical practice supervisor for a 
student teacher.  The notable difference in approach in these two settings prompted my questions on 
this topic.  
 

The first setting described is Jefferson Elementary School, which is in a residential 
neighborhood in a mid-sized city in the Southwestern United States. It serves 850 students in 
Kindergarten through 6th grade. Built on the site of what was originally a walnut grove, it serves a low 
income community. 83% of its student qualify for free or reduced lunch. 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 39, ISSUE 1 (2018) 

  
 

67 
 

 

 

 

In addition to the general education classes offered at Jefferson, the school also has four 
special day classes (SDCs). These special education classes are located in the elementary school, but 
much of the oversight for these classes comes from the district Program Specialist. These classes 
contain only students who have disabilities. Two of these special day classes serve students with 
moderate to severe disabilities. It is the primary classroom for grades Kindergarten through third 
grade that is the setting for this scenario. Students in this classroom may require significant support 
in the areas of mobility, communication, skills for daily living, and academics. Their education is 
usually focused on helping them to function in the most independent way possible given the extent of 
their disabilities.  The expectations are that these students will not receive a high school diploma, but 
a certificate of completion. There is also the expectation that these students will continue to need 
significant support in their adult years.  

 
In a special day class, the reading curriculum teaches letter sound associations as is common 

in other primary classrooms, but this classroom curriculum also focuses on sight words. The aim is to 
have students learn 500 functional words that will help them to live more independent lives in 
adulthood. The curriculum is modified according to each student’s capacity. Some may be working 
on tracing the first letter in their first name, and others might be constructing sentences or 
paragraphs. Math may be placing four counting bears on an enlarged number four as mentioned 
above, or it may involve double digit addition or subtraction with regrouping. The whole class lessons 
are built around literature, seasonal topics, and general literacy and math skills. The small group work 
is ability based, and each group does activities that are specific to their level of performance. Some 
students in the class may attend to personal needs independently, but others may require more 
assistance with activities of daily living such as eating and toileting.  

 
The setting of the classroom is on the edge of the campus, and the classroom has its own 

restroom that contains adaptive toilets and a lift table for students who require diapering. This 
restroom is kept locked so that the adaptive equipment will not be tampered with by unsupervised 
students.  

 
Interaction between the special day class students and the general education students happens 

during a joint recess time. The students in the special day class have an extra layer of supervision with 
the instructional assistants shadowing the students for protection and redirection. The students who 
use wheelchairs and walkers are generally accompanied by instructional assistants.  

 
During the breakfast and lunch meal, the students eat in the cafeteria, but at a separate table 

with support as needed from the instructional assistants. The SDC students participate in most 
assemblies, usually sitting at the edge of the rows of children so that the wheelchairs can be readily 
moved in and out of the multi-purpose room.  

 
At the beginning and end of the day, most of the SDC students arrive by bus. They are the 

only students at the school who receive bussing. The bus drops off and picks up at the door to the 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 39, ISSUE 1 (2018) 

  
 

68 
 

 

 

 

cafeteria, which is about 100 feet from the front gate of the school through which all other student 
enter and exit. The two students who live close enough to walk to school also enter through the 
cafeteria doors. 

 
In the second elementary setting observed, a different approach is used. Crafton Elementary 

School is located in a small farming community in rural Midwestern United States. It serves 282 
students in pre-kindergarten through 5th grade. 33% of the student qualify for free or reduced lunch 
and 91% of the student population is Caucasian. 

 
Over the last decade or so, the Crafton school district has become more intentional in 

implementing its goal of full inclusion for students with disabilities. Oversight for these students 
happens at the site level with the elementary principal overseeing the program. At Crafton 
Elementary School, there are three special educators; one serves kindergarten and first grade, one 
serves second and third grade, and one serves third, fourth, and fifth grade. There are no separate 
settings for students with disabilities, and each student receives services in a general education 
classroom. Many of the lessons in these general education classrooms are co-taught with a general 
education and special education teacher. The teachers at each grade level are provided one hour of co-
planning time per week during the school day. During this time, the co-teachers determine learning 
targets and plan lessons.  

 
For observers in the Crafton classrooms, it is not always evident which students are receiving 

special education services. The students are intermingled with their typically developing peers in 
various groups. As is true at Jefferson Elementary, differentiation of instruction is evident in many of 
the lessons, but this differentiation happens across the entire classroom population, not only for the 
students who qualify for special education services. The differentiation may be leveled assignments, 
different levels of scaffolding, extra time to complete tasks, small group reviews, and additional 
practice.  

 
Because of the rural nature of the community and the resulting lack of specialized personnel, 

the approach to special education is quite different at Crafton as compared to Jefferson. In a large 
district with a variety of specialized settings, the task is to find the correct setting for students who 
qualify for special education services. In Crafton, each student is assessed to determine his/her 
educational needs, and then decisions are made about how best to provide for those needs in a 
general education classroom.  

 
In one Crafton kindergarten classroom, six of the fifteen students qualify for special education 

services, with an additional student receiving speech and language services. For the majority of the 
day, all of the students are in the classroom, although any of the students may be occasionally 
removed from the classroom for individual assessments. Some lessons are presented on the carpet in a 
whole group setting, and these lessons are commonly followed by small group instruction at three 
separate tables. Each of the groups is of mixed ability, and the teacher or assistant assigned to each 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 39, ISSUE 1 (2018) 

  
 

69 
 

 

 

 

table helps all of the students at that table. Because of common planning time, each of the adults in 
the room is aware of students’ current levels and academic goals. Another structural note is the 
opportunity for student choice time built into the daily schedule. Following a whole group lesson, 
students are allowed to pick from a menu of five options that include read to self, read with a friend, 
writing, and computer games. Students who require additional practice or re-teaching often have their 
needs met in short one-to-one sessions. 

 
Theoretical Frameworks 

 
These two scenarios grow out of different theoretical frameworks. The scene at Jefferson 

Elementary can best be understood when viewed through the medical model as a theoretical lens. 
Before 1974, when PL 94-142 guaranteed education for students with disabilities, the professionals 
assisting children with disabilities were located within medical and therapeutic settings. Early special 
education was a natural extension of this history. Valle and Connor (2011) describe the ways in 
which the medical model aligns with traditional public special education. For the sake of clarity, the 
following description includes the medical terminology in parentheses after each component. The 
student (patient) presents with education issues (symptoms). The school psychologist (scientific expert) 
performs an assessment (examination) in order to determine a possible disability (diagnosis). An 
education plan is written (prescription) and the individualized instruction in special education (course 
of treatment) is begun in order to remediate (cure) the student (patient). Annual IEP meetings 
(follow-up appointment) determine whether the placement (treatment) is working.  

 
Operating in a medical model leads naturally to the segregated placement at Jefferson. The 

assumption is that the students with disabilities need different services than students without 
disabilities. The professionals who educate (treat) them have a different set of skills than those who 
educate the typically developing students. There is also a built-in assumption that the students in 
special education should stay in that placement until they are cured and can operate at the same level 
as their typically developing peers. Some of the isolation may even come from the practice of keeping 
sick individuals away from the healthy to prevent contamination. 

 
In contrast, the scene at Crafton Elementary grows from a social model of disability. In this 

model, the disability is not located in the individual with the impairment, but is located in the social 
construction of disability (Valle & Connor, 2010; Ferri, 2006). The argument is that impairment is a 
natural and universal component of diversity, and it is only the social construction of disability that 
causes problems for the individuals with disabilities. When the teachers at Crafton are meeting the 
student with a disability, the question is not about how to fix the child, but how to fix the classroom 
or school to make it accessible to the child. Because the disability isn’t located within the child, there 
is no question about whether (s)he belongs in a different or segregated placement. 

 
Let me clearly state that the severity of the disabilities of the students in these two classrooms 

are different. The students at Jefferson with the most severe disabilities may or may not have their 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 39, ISSUE 1 (2018) 

  
 

70 
 

 

 

 

educational needs met in a general education setting. However, there are several students at Jefferson 
who are at a similar developmental level as the students at Crafton. For these students, it is their 
respective districts’ theoretical framework that places students in either inclusive or segregated 
settings.  

 
Unintended Lessons 

 
 Having described the two settings and given their theoretical foundations, I move now to what 
I fear are the unintended lessons we teach to typically developing students through our practices of 
in(ex)clusion. 
 
Who gets to belong? 
 

The first lesson I fear we teach is that only students who measure up to the norm get to belong. 
Students in elementary classrooms are capable of making their own observations about what is normal 
based on what they see around them. In the days before racial integration of schools, students, and 
other denizens of schools, had strong opinions about who got to belong in white schools. When 
Brown v. Board of Education changed the federal policies about racial integration, schools struggled 
with the paradigms they had created about who belonged and who didn’t belong in schools.  

 
If students are taught that individuals with disabilities don’t get to belong in schools, they are 

likely to carry this lesson into their adult lives. The assumptions from childhood will carry over to 
who gets to belong in the workplace, in the club, in the community of faith, and even in the 
neighborhood.  
 
Danger/Protection 
 
 Another lesson I contend we are teaching our students in segregated classrooms is that people 
with disabilities either pose a threat to, or need to be protected from, society. Separate placement for 
students with disabilities can send the message that they are dangerous and may cause harm or injury 
to students without disabilities. Students who learn this message are likely to be frightened or 
intimidated by the unknown. Conversely, typically developing students could assume that the reason 
for the separation is to protect the individuals with disabilities. The segregated students may be seen 
as fragile and vulnerable. They could be in danger from being with their typically developing peers. 
The separation may send the message that the disability is contagious, and that the separation is 
designed to prevent exposure and contamination. These messages will affect the way individuals 
engage with individuals with disabilities into adulthood. Students who have learned these unintended 
lessons are likely to stay away from people with disabilities because they fear they are dangerous, 
contagious, or because they fear they are fragile and likely to be injured.  
 
 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 39, ISSUE 1 (2018) 

  
 

71 
 

 

 

 

Ableism 
 
 The last unintended lesson we teach segregated students is that of ableism. Ableism is 
described as discrimination in favor of able-bodied people. If students grow up in segregated settings, 
they may learn the message that people who are able-bodied are more valuable than people who are 
disabled. In fact, students may carry this generalization one step further and hide any difficulties or 
areas where they need extra support so that no one will suspect them of being disabled. If students 
fear losing their status as typically developing, they will mask areas of difficulty and misunderstanding. 
This could limit their access to needed supports in learning. If they are not catching on to concepts as 
quickly as their peers, students may hide their needs because of the risk of being removed from the 
favored group.  
 

Conclusion 
 

 To review, the literature is full of examples of the advantages and drawbacks of the inclusion 
of students with disabilities in general education classrooms. My purpose in this article is to explore 
the unintended lessons we may be teaching typically developing students about people with 
disabilities. The purposive goal of federal legislation was that people with disabilities would have 
equal access to educational opportunities and in turn, be more integrated into society in their adult 
life. But because the federal legislation has been interpreted along a wide continuum of inclusion, 
students with similar disabilities are placed differently depending upon the preconceptions of 
individual districts.  My fear is that, in districts where students with disabilities are segregated, we are 
unintentionally strengthening and perpetuating biases. The damage happens in actual time, but the 
greater fear is that the patterns that we establish in childhood are carried into adulthood and affect 
the way our students view society.  When we segregate in schools, we structure schemas of which 
people are unaware. These structures must be purposefully dismantled in order for the rights of 
people with disabilities to be realized. What if these schemas were never constructed to begin with? 
What if students with disabilities were and are expected to be part of all classroom communities? 
What if elementary school students learned that people with disabilities are not so very different, or 
dangerous, or vulnerable? What if learning diversity came to be valued, and the contributions of those 
with disabilities could be realized in a familiar and inclusive environment? Imagine how differently 
students who experienced inclusion would view who gets to belong, who is dangerous, who needs 
protection, and their own able-bodied privilege. The benefits are clear for the students with and 
without disabilities, and for society as a whole. Even though inclusion legislation is in place, districts 
are still needlessly segregating students. We must come to understand the unintended lessons such 
policies of segregation perpetuate.  



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOL. 39, ISSUE 1 (2018) 

  
 

72 
 

 

 

 

References 
Brantlinger, E. A. (2006). Who benefits from special education? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum 

Associates.  
Cosier, M. (2014). Using numbers and narrative to support inclusive schooling. In Danforth (Ed.), 

Becoming a great inclusive educator (195-208). New York, NY: Peter Lang.  
Ferri, B. A. (2006). Teaching to Trouble. In Danforth & Gabel (Eds.), Vital Questions Facing Disability 

Studies in Education (pp. 289-306). New York, NY: Peter Lang. 
Gallagher, D. J. (2006). The natural hierarchy undone: Disability studies’ contributions to 

contemporary debates in education. In Danforth & Gabel (Eds.), Vital Questions Facing 
Disability Studies in Education (63-76). New York, NY: Peter Lang. 

Kliewer, C. (2006). Disability studies and young children: Finding relevance. In Danforth & Gabel 
(Eds.), Vital Questions Facing Disability Studies in Education (pp. 91-102). New York, NY: Peter 
Lang. 

Merton, R. (1936). The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. American Sociological 
Review, 1(6), 894-904. Retrieved from Retrieved from 
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2084615.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A1ae857ffc998186287a
bdc6af6c1e76f 

Naraian, S. (2017). Teaching for inclusion. New York: Teachers College Press. 
Rice, N. (2006). Teacher Education as a Site of Resistance. In Danforth & Gabel (Eds.), Vital 

Questions Facing Disability Studies in Education (pp. 17-31). New York, NY: Peter Lang. 
Valle, J. W. & Connor, D. J. (2010). Rethinking disability: A disability studies approach to inclusive 

practices. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.  
 
 
Address Correspondence to:  

Carol Hines Ph.D. 
Viterbo University, La Crosse, WI 
Assistant Professor | College of Education, Engineering, Letters, and Sciences 
Cross-Categorical Special Education Program Specialist 
cnhines@viterbo.edu 
 
 
 
 

 
 


