





































Microsoft Word - p1-9


 Humanities and Social Science Research; Vol. 3, No. 2; 2020 
ISSN 2576-3024   E-ISSN 2576-3032 

https://doi.org/10.30560/hssr.v3n2p1 

 1 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 
 

The Trauma of Broad-Based Inclusion for Students with Autism 

Gary Shkedy1, Dalia Shkedy1 & Aileen H. Sandoval-Norton2 
1 Alternative Teaching Strategy Center, U.S.A. 
2 The Chicago School of Professional Psychology, U.S.A. 

Correspondence: Dalia Shkedy, Alternative Teaching Strategy Center, U.S.A. E-mail: dalia altteaching.org 

Received: April 22, 2020; Accepted: May 2, 2020; Published: May 9, 2020 

 

No direct funding was received for this research. 

 

Abstract 

Inclusion is a model where students with disabilities spend most/all of their time in an educational setting with 
non-disabled students. This model has led many countries to pass laws requiring disabled students be educated in 
the least restrictive environment: they should be educated with students without disabilities to the maximum extent 
possible. However, this model ignores the very nature of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). The autistic brain is 
different in both function and structure, making deficits in social interaction, inherent and appropriate for their 
development. This paper explores research on the autistic brain, comorbidities, child development, and trauma 
associated with forced inclusion for this population. Research on brain function indicates inclusion can be very 
stressful and can produce anxiety and post-traumatic stress in children with ASD.  

Keywords: autism, inclusion, education, neurodevelopmental, trauma 

1. Introduction 

Inclusion can be generally described as a model where students with disabilities spend most or all of their time in 
an educational setting with non-disabled students. The idea of inclusion is based on the concept that it is effective 
for students with special needs to have a mixed experience in order for them to be more successful in social 
interactions, leading to further success in later life. It is also based on the concept that it is discriminatory to 
segregate students based on intellectual ability. This model of inclusion has led many countries to pass laws that 
require students with special needs to be educated in the least restrictive environment i.e. students with disabilities 
should be educated with students without disabilities to the maximum extent possible.  

Shortly after the reenactment of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 2004, the United States 
Department of Education Institute of Educational Services published “The Condition of Education 2005” wherein 
a chapter advocates for “Inclusion of Students with Disabilities in Regular Classrooms.” This chapter appeared to 
emphasize education in the least restrictive environment. However, the chapter actually reports data and various 
statistics on the demographics of children with disabilities who were most likely to spend time in a “regular 
classroom.” The data indicates that White students with disabilities were more likely than students of any other 
ethnicity to spend at least 80% of their day in a regular classroom. Black students with disabilities were more likely 
than students of any other ethnicity to spend less than 40% in their regular classroom (United States Department 
of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2005). The data reported appears to speak more to racial 
disparities in regards to school or classroom placement, as oppose to diagnostic differences or individual needs. 
The chapter seems to imply that White students with disabilities are perhaps perceived as more competent or more 
able to participate in a regular classroom setting when compared to students of other ethnicities. It comes as no 
surprise that after the publication of “The Condition of Education 2005” schools may have felt pressured to assess 
their special education programs for fear of racial inequalities that could potentially result in their losing funding. 

This trend has continued over the years and today in a world with a heightened awareness of anti-discrimination 
and a perceived dearth of school funding, there has been a major push towards more inclusion of special needs 
students on school campuses, but with no identifiable goal. What is the goal of inclusion? Is the goal to teach 
children to learn social skills or to build relationships with other children? How would attempting to force 
relationships teach social skills? Or perhaps it is an attempt to refrain from racial profiling and prejudices. 
Regardless, the pendulum swayed too far and has resulted in imposing a common practice of “inclusion” onto 
every child, regardless of the child’s ethnicity, but also regardless of their diagnosis.  



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 3, No. 2; 2020 

 2 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 
 

One prime example of this is Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). While there is no “cure” for ASD, there are a 
plethora of treatments and attempts at alleviating related symptoms. Additionally, traditional school settings have 
been modified in an attempt to address specific needs for children with ASD. The Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act (IDEA) and other similar laws would suggest that educators have a legal duty to keep students (of 
all ethnicities) in a regular classroom setting, unless they have diagnoses or special needs that are not compatible 
with the traditional school setting. While many children with Autism Spectrum Disorder would appear to meet 
this criterion for separate schooling, educators and parents alike have become convinced that forced socialization 
is inherently good for all, including those with ASD. 

Currently, there are various levels of inclusion used with students with ASD. There is the most intensive form of 
inclusion (also called “mainstreaming”), wherein a child with ASD participates in a regular class with typical peers 
all day. Regular classes typically consist of many students with lots of distracting color and decorations, noise, 
movement etc. There is a slightly less intensive level of inclusion which involves social instruction. This kind of 
inclusion is often times done during “circle time,” or art or music class, and purports to teach children to engage 
in basic social interactions such as waving, greeting others, maintaining eye-contact, etc. Lastly, some children 
participate in “inclusion” on the playground during break times or during lunch. This kind of inclusion may be an 
attempt at getting children with ASD to play with typical children. Despite the varying levels of inclusion and their 
presumed goals, it completely disregards the very nature of Autism Spectrum Disorder.  

2. Autism and the Autistic Brain 

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder classified by persistent deficits in social 
communication and interaction, as well as restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities 
(American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Symptoms are typically recognized by the second year of life (12-24 
months), and may be accompanied with language impairment. While some preschool aged children with ASD will 
eventually use spoken language, approximately 25-50% will remain nonverbal or minimally verbal (Baghdadli et 
al., 2012; Lord, Risi & Pickles, 2004; Sigman & McGovern, 2005). While not a diagnostic criteria, ASD has also 
been strongly associated with sensory processing issues and self-injurious behaviors (Duerden et al., 2012; 
Baghdadli, Pascal, Grisi, & Aussilloux, 2003; Rattaz, Michelon, & Baghdadli, 2015; Richards, Oliver, Nelson, & 
Moss, 2012). Research indicates various patterns of sensory processing issues with prevalence rates as high as 90% 
(Tomchek & Dunn, 2007; Tomchek, Huebner, & Dunn, 2014). Self-injurious behaviors (SIB) include but are not 
limited to biting, hair pulling, head-banging, and skin picking/scratching (Minshawi et al., 2014). Self-injurious 
behaviors are more common in children with ASD than in their typically developing peers. In fact, research 
suggests 30% of children with ASD in clinic-based studies engage in SIB (Minshawi et al., 2014; Soke et al., 
2016).   

The Autistic brain is different in both function and structure, which makes their deficits in social interaction, 
inherent and appropriate for their brain development. In Autism research, the “hyperarousal model” is a much 
supported model which in part states that gaze avoidance is an adaptive (appropriate) response because the face 
and eyes are strongly aversive to those with ASD (Corden at al., 2008; Dalton et al., 2005; Richer & Cross, 1976, 
Senju & Johnsons, 2009). Research also indicates a general hyperactivity in various areas of the autistic brain 
resulting in overstimulation which can explain a number of symptoms, in addition to just aversive responses to 
eye-gaze (Dichter, Fedler, Bodfish, 2009; Martineau, Andersson, Barthélémy, Cottier & Destrieux, 2010; 
Markram & Markram, 2010). One study in particular, found 90% of children with ASD had sensory abnormalities 
in multiple sensory domains (Leekam, Nieto, Libby, Wing, & Gould, 2007). It is this hyperactivity that causes 
children with ASD to be overly stimulated by light, sound, movement and touch, to name a few. Researchers found 
that there were generally six patterns of sensory processing issues in children with ASD i.e. low energy/weak, 
tactile and movement sensitivity, taste/smell sensitivity, auditory and visual sensitivity, sensory 
seeking/distractibility, and hypo-responsivity (Tomchek, Huebner, & Dunn, 2014). Additionally, many children 
with ASD are unable to filter or process external noise which may result in elevated internal noise, causing stress 
(Park, Schauder, Zhang, Bennetto, & Tadin, 2017). 

In individuals with ASD there is an 18% prevalence rate of hyperacusis, an abnormally acute hearing due to 
sensory or neural sensitivity, characterized by intolerance for normal levels of sound (Kellerman, Fan, & Gorman, 
2005). Subjecting these individuals to the levels of noise generated by their typical peers is not only painful but 
traumatic. Researchers also found that children with ASD have increased pain sensitivity and touch sensitivity 
(Riquelme, Hatem, & Montoya, 2016). Placing students with ASD in an inclusion environment, one in which other 
students have no awareness or knowledge of their pain and touch sensitivities, only increases the chances of them 
being touched, hurt and traumatized. Similarly, placing them in an overly stimulating visual environment or one 
that has too much odor can also cause pain and thereby cause trauma in students with ASD.  



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 3, No. 2; 2020 

 3 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 
 

Furthermore, the atypical pattern of mutual gaze or eye-contact in particular, has been studied and discussed in 
various clinical and experimental settings (e.g. Dalton et al., 2005; Pelphrey et al., 2002; Rutherford & Towns, 
2008). Overstimulation is seen in the over-activation of the amygdala when eye-gaze is held for longer (Dalton, 
Nacewicz, Johnstone, Schaefer, Gernsbacher, Goldsmith, et al. 2005; Markram & Markram, 2010). In fact, as a 
result of these consistent findings, research has recommended that professionals do not try to engage in eye-contact 
with children with ASD “as this provokes more flight behavior” (Richer & Cross, 1976, p. 193). Forcing this kind 
of face or eye-gaze is too stimulating, can be fear-provoking, and may even cause physical pain, yet this remains 
a goal for children with ASD for some reason.  

The most consistently reported and largest effect in terms of brain differences is in the fusiform gyrus which is 
activated during face processing in typical individuals, but is notably less activated in children with ASD. Dalton 
et al. (2005) studied this in more detail and found results suggesting that gaze fixation is associated with a 
heightened emotional response. This is because gaze fixation was more closely related to activation of the 
amygdala instead of the fusiform gyrus in children with ASD. The amygdala is an important structure for detecting 
threats and initiating appropriate behavioral responses, such as fear. Not only is the amygdala especially important 
in the recognition and management of fear, but functional imaging studies also indicate higher activation of the 
amygdala during fear learning (Higgins & George, 2013). This is why emotionally relevant memories are thought 
to be stored in the amygdala and may speak to the overlearning of unpleasant memories like in cases of Post-
Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and anxiety. Furthermore, Haruvi-Lamdan, Horesh, & Golan (2008) found that 
there is a shared underlying mechanism for ASD and PTSD and thus ASD may serve as a vulnerability factor for 
PTSD. Specifically, an increased risk to those with ASD to the exposure of a traumatic event.  

The following table summarizes the brain functions and related symptoms associated with autism. 

 

Table 1. Summary of brain functions and related symptoms associated with ASD. 

Brain function Reference 

Sensory processing issues with prevalence rates as 
high as 90% 

Tomchek & Dunn, 2007; Tomchek, Huebner, & 
Dunn, 2014  

Self-injurious behaviors Minshawi et al., 2014 

Face and eyes are strongly aversive Corden et al., 2008; Dalton et al., 2005; Richer & 
Cross, 1976, Senju & Johnsons, 2009 

General hyperactivity in various areas of the autistic 
brain result in overstimulation 

Dichter, Fedler, Bodfish, 2009; Martineau, 
Andersson, Barthélémy, Cottier & Destrieux, 2010; 
Markram & Markram, 2010 

90% of children with ASD have sensory abnormalities 
and sensory symptoms in multiple sensory domains 

Leekam, Nieto, Libby, Wing, & Gould, 2007 

Six patterns of sensory processing issues Tomchek, Huebner, & Dunn, 2014 

Unable to filter or process external noise Park, Schauder, Zhang, Bennetto, & Tadin, 2017 

18% prevalence rate of hyperacusis Kellerman, Fan, & Gorman, 2005 

Increased pain sensitivity and touch sensitivity Riquelme, Hatem, & Montoya, 2016 

Over-activation of the amygdala when eye-gaze is 
held 

Dalton, Nacewicz, Johnstone, Schaefer, Gernsbacher, 
Goldsmith, et al. 2005; Markram & Markram, 2010 

Eye-contact provokes more flight behavior Richer & Cross, 1976, p. 193 

Gaze fixation more closely related to activation of the 
amygdala 

Dalton et al., 2005 

Shared underlying mechanism for ASD and PTSD Haruvi-Lamdan, Horesh, & Golan, 2008 

 

 

 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 3, No. 2; 2020 

 4 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 
 

3. Functional Behavior Assessments 

The consequence of children with ASD becoming overwhelmed with the repeated exposure to pain and 
overstimulation, is manifested differently for each child and is also mitigated by their level of expressive speech. 
Many children resort to screaming, crying, eloping, withdrawing, crawling under tables/desks, turning off the 
lights, aggression, increased stimming, self-injurious behaviors, etc. Teachers, aides, and school districts are then 
held responsible for addressing these issues and typically respond with what is called a “functional behavior 
assessment” or an FBA. This has become a standard approach and is even part of the law:  

Determination that behavior was a manifestation. If the LEA, the parent, and relevant members of the IEP Team 
make the determination that the conduct was a manifestation of the child’s disability, the IEP Team must. 

1. Either- 

(i) Conduct a functional behavioral assessment, unless the LEA had conducted a functional behavioral 

assessment before the behavior that resulted in the change of placement occurred, and implement a 

behavioral intervention plan for the child; or 

(ii) If a behavioral intervention plan, and modify it, as necessary, to address the behavior’ and  

2. Except as provided in paragraph (g) of the sections, return the child to the placement from which the 

child was removed, unless the parent and the LEA agree to a change of placement as part of the 

modification of the behavioral intervention plan. (IDEA, 2017) 
 

An FBA has become the standard approach for addressing maladaptive or defiant behaviors evidently, without any 
knowledge of the limitations of an FBA; it cannot provide any answers that are not already observable to the 
human eye. An FBA was created with the intention of forming various hypotheses in order to eventually determine 
the “function” of a behavior (Maurice, Green & Luce, 1996). It is typically conducted by a Board Certified 
Behavioral Analyst (BCBA), in order to assume the function of a behavior. However, the FBA was developed 
using one very small subset of psychology called behaviorism. Early behavioral psychologists insisted that one 
could only measure what one sees. Therefore, the belief was that anything that cannot be observed cannot be 
scientifically studied, such as thoughts, emotions, sensations and any other intangibles (Myers & Dewall, 2017). 
These intangibles (e.g. thoughts, emotions, etc) were emphasized in the early 1920’s following various “insight” 
experiments, particularly when German researcher Wolfgang Kohler discovered that even chimpanzees have 
insight, confirming the existence of cognitive learning and the importance of internal processes (Myers & Dewall, 
2017). However, since the FBA was developed without any understanding or consideration for things such as 
insight learning, cognitions, emotions, etc., the FBA is constantly misapplied with the assumption that it will reveal 
the function of a behavior, even though the “function” or expression of behavior is typically due to an internal 
process. This concept is best illustrated by an example. Suppose a nonverbal student with ASD has a severe 
migraine and hits their head. The standard FBA in this case determines the function of the behavior is a form of 
task avoidance, when in fact it is more likely to be a cry for help, an expression of an internal process which is 
unobservable. 

Consequently, those who conduct an FBA are really just conducting experiment after experiment without realizing 
that an FBA can never measure or track internal processes. In fact some of the standard explanations used in an 
FBA such as escape, task avoidance or access to a desired object are unobservable and therefore unmeasurable 
resulting in at best a guess of what is really going on. Even worse, is that should an FBA ever truly suggest the 
function of a behavior, the understanding of these internal processes is far beyond the scope of BCBAs as they are 
not psychologists. Moreover, BCBA’s are not required to take even a single class on child development, Autism 
Spectrum Disorder, general psychology, etc. (Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (n.d.)).  

The behaviors of students with autism are generally the result of the over activation of their brains and as such, the 
real function of their behaviors is unobservable and difficult to pinpoint. The resulting unscientific functional 
behavior assessment and this lack of competency in understanding the autistic brain, sets the stage for continued 
exposure and prolonged trauma for this particular group of children. This is especially true for students placed in 
inclusion with the wrong treatment plan that resulted from a standard FBA. Unfortunately, school districts and 
teachers also rely on this FBA to inform Individualized Education Plans or Programs (IEP), making this trauma 
part of the child’s everyday school experience. Thus continuing the cycle, reinforcing fear learning and 
overactivation of the brain.  



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 3, No. 2; 2020 

 5 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 
 

4. Long Term Consequences of Repeated Trauma 

The changes in brain structure and function from the chronic stress and trauma caused by inclusion is strengthened 
with each exposure as seen in complex Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, consequently leaving lasting effects. This 
is likely due to the pattern or neural activation that becomes ingrained and automatic for the person with each 
exposure (Perry, Pollard, Blakley, Baker, & Vigilante, 1995). In childhood, this has a profound impact on the 
cognitive, behavioral, physical and emotional functioning (Perry, Pollard, Blakley, Baker, & Vigilante, 1995). 
Research has attempted to categorize domains of impairment in children exposed to complex trauma and have 
identified at least the following domains: attachment, biology, dissociation, affect regulation, behavioral control, 
cognition and self-concept (Cook et al., 2017). These domains were predominantly identified in typical children, 
and one can only imagine the severity and intensity of this impairment within the context of the Autistic brain, 
which is already overactivated and hyperaroused to begin with. This chronic stress, trauma, and further over-
activation of the brain due to forced inclusion, only contributes to abnormal levels of fear and increased anxiety, 
as well as other neuropsychiatric comorbidities (Amaral et al., 2003; Murris et al., 1998; Perry, Pollard, Blakley, 
Baker, & Vigilante, 1995). 

Furthermore, multiple or repeated trauma “in childhood can lead to outcomes that are not simply more severe than 
the sequelae of single incident trauma, but are qualitatively different in their tendency to affect multiple affective 
and interpersonal domains” (Cloitre et al., 2009. P. 405). Research demonstrates this stress can interfere with 
cognitive, biological and emotional development, and often manifests in somatization, behavioral issues, learning 
disabilities, poor self-regulation, aggression toward self and others, etc, (e.g., Cook, Spinazzola, Ford, Lanktree, 
Bluestin, Cloitre, DeRose, Hubbard, Kagan, Liataud, Mallah, Olafson, van der Kolk, 2017; Streeck-Fischer, van 
der Kolk, 2002). 

5. Consequences of Broad-Based Inclusion 

In addition to differences in brain structure and function, and preexisting hypersensitivities, research has also found 
important differences and consequences when inclusion interventions are used with children with ASD, when 
compared to typical children and children with other special needs. Research has found that mainstream schooling 
or “full inclusion” has actually led to more social isolation, rejection and bullying among children with ASD even 
when compared to other special education needs students (Symes & Humphrey, 2010; Zablotsy, Bradshaw, 
Anderson, & Law, 2013). Humphrey and Lewis (2008), found that social naivety can make youth with Autism 
Spectrum Disorder easy targets for teasing and deception, which might account for higher rates of bullying. This 
can undoubtedly exacerbate the predispositions for depression, anxiety and PTSD. Research has also noted ASD 
as a vulnerability factor for suicidal ideation and attempts. In fact, Mayes, Gorman, Hillwig-Garce, & Syed (2012) 
found prevalence rates of suicidal ideation and attempts in people with ASD to be significantly higher than typical, 
non-depressed peers. Furthermore, a critical meta-analysis discovered that school-aged youth with ASD were at 
greater risk of bullying and school victimization in general, when compared to their typical peers (Maiano, 
Normand, Salvas, Moullec, & Aimé, 2016). Maiano and colleagues (2016) also found the prevalence of bullying 
victimization was lower in special education settings compared to regular school or mixed school settings. This 
data continues to suggest that perhaps special education or mixed school settings are actually less damaging and 
more appropriate for children with this specific diagnosis.  

In fact, children in full inclusion classrooms are “more likely to be victimized than those who spend the majority 
of their time in special education settings” (Zablotsky, Bradshaw, Anderson, & Law, 2013, p. 1). In a survey 
conducted by the National Autistic Society (2006), 1400 families affected by ASD reported that bullying had 
damaged their child’s self-esteem, mental health, and relationships. Moreover, “the unique characteristics of ASD 
may determine which events are experienced as particularly traumatic (e.g., social insults and degradation, sensory 
overstimulation, abrupt changes in known routines) and affect both the manifestation and severity of posttraumatic 
sequelae among diagnosed individuals” (Haruvi-Lamdan et al., 2018, p. 1). This is just some of the documented 
data indicating the negative impacts of full inclusion.  

Forcing social interaction onto children with ASD is not only useless and stressful since their brain structures 
respond differently, but it can continue to cause further trauma and anxiety-related symptoms with each subsequent 
exposure, as previously discussed. While some “higher functioning” children with ASD may want to engage in 
social activities and may be apt to do so, flooding is not the solution. A structured approach that does not overload 
the Autistic brain, and is collaborative, taking into account the child’s preferences and overall psychological well-
being would be the appropriate approach. Furthermore, forcing all children with ASD (especially those who cannot 
communicate), to interact with others in ways that they are unable to is anxiety provoking, and can elicit abnormal 
fear responses and learning.  



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 3, No. 2; 2020 

 6 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 
 

The chronic stress of being forced to participate in inclusion activities should not be taken lightly. Even in 
situations such as “circle time” which may be viewed as an easy task, research indicates great difficulty for children 
with ASD. This is due to “the rapidly changing social and communicative events inherent” to instruction and social 
communicative interactions (Quill, 1997. P. 707). This research and others have indicated impairment in various 
aspects of social interaction which is presumably the goal of inclusion-to teach children with ASD to socialize. 
This goal is inconsistent with research and unrealistic for many children with ASD. Research indicates that many 
children with ASD only respond to perceptual movements or instructions when the function is to obtain an object. 
When researchers pointed to various objects merely to make a comment or remark (considered a higher, non-
functional level of communication), the children with ASD did not understand the significance or purpose and so 
they would not respond, or they would instead attempt to obtain the object. These results indicate a prioritized 
functional basis for communication or interaction as opposed more abstract social constructs (Baron-Cohen, 1989). 
Put simply, an opinion or statement that does not amount to anything functional, does not result in the acquiring 
of any need or want, will be confusing, misunderstood and is of no value to most children with ASD. Therefore, 
this kind of social interaction should not be imposed on all children.  

6. Conclusion 

The goals of inclusion attempt to force a child with Autism Spectrum Disorder to engage in and to learn how to 
behave in a socially “appropriate” manner; however, in doing so, one inadvertently activates the emotional center 
of the brain. Unfortunately, unlike broken bones, one is unable to see the changes and the impact stress and trauma 
has on neurodevelopment. This is why it is especially important to understand various brain functions and 
structures in diverse populations before experimenting with any interventions i.e. inclusion. Furthermore, 
repetitive exposures and stresses of forced inclusion over time, can produce the same neurological and psychiatric 
results we see in patients with PTSD.  

It is not enough to have accommodations such as visual schedules or assigned paraprofessionals when there are so 
many stimuli that can overload, cause pain, and distract children with ASD. Research indicates that up to 95% of 
children with ASD demonstrate some dysfunction in sensory processing (Tomchek & Dunn, 2007). Even the 
lowest level of inclusion wherein a child with ASD is forced to have lunch breaks with many other children, can 
still cause significant stress. Although these children might not be subjected to a regular classroom with an 
abundance of stimuli, they still endure the chaos and painful overload of stimuli when they are brought to the 
playground for inclusion purposes. Children with ASD may eventually overlearn this stress and pain, and each 
exposure will subsequently strengthen the neural connections to further maintain this trauma, similar to complex 
posttraumatic stress.  

Despite the inability to process faces and social information from the outside world, the anxiety and fear-provoking 
stimuli, the oversensitivity to sight, sound, smell and touch, the chronic stress and risk for overlearning fear and 
inducing complex posttraumatic stress disorder, and creating further barriers to language functioning, educators, 
paraprofessionals, and even some parents continue to advocate for inclusion while ignoring the inherent brain 
function and the nature of Autism Spectrum Disorder.  

The majority of children with ASD do not have the physiological capacity to interact the way many advocates of 
inclusion believe is possible, and more importantly, these advocates are inadvertently causing harm. To try and 
undo the very deficit that defines ASD makes little sense - especially when taking into account that ASD is a 
neurodevelopmental disorder, not a behavioral disorder or learned consequence. It is not something that can be 
“cured” or undone, it can only be treated if warranted. For a child with ASD, the least restrictive environment is 
an environment that promotes the child’s social, emotional, and cognitive development with the least amount of 
communication barriers including anxiety, chronic stress, and fear-provoking stimuli--which is not congruent with 
forced inclusion.  

Teaching and parenting practices in general can be a contentious subject and are often met with defensiveness, 
criticisms, or confusion. However, in considering the last 20-30 years of research, it is evident the trauma-inducing 
practice of inclusion causes harm for many students with ASD, and the long-term effects are even more 
pronounced. Perhaps it is time to move away from the “one size fits all” approach and instead consider available 
research, and each child’s diagnosis, needs, and well-being individually.  

References 

Amaral, D. G., Bauman, M. D., & Mills Schumann, C. (2003). The amygdala and autism: implications from non‐
human primate studies. Genes, Brain and Behavior, 2(5), 295-302. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1601-
183X.2003.00043.x 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 3, No. 2; 2020 

 7 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 
 

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5®). 
American Psychiatric Pub. 

Baghdadli, A., Assouline, B., Sonié, S., Pernon, E., Darrou, C., Michelon, C., Picot, M. C., Aussilous, C., & Pry, 
R. (2012). Developmental trajectories of adaptive behaviors from early childhood to adolescence in a cohort 
of 152 children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42(7), 
1314-1325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-011-1357-z 

Baghdadli, A., Pascal, C., Grisi, S., & Aussilloux, C. (2003). Risk factors for self‐injurious behaviours among 222 
young children with autistic disorders. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 47(8), 622-627. 
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2788.2003.00507.x 

Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (n.d.). BCBA Requirements. Retrieved March, 16, 2020. Retrieved from 
https://www.bacb.com/bcba/bcba-requirements/ 

Baron‐Cohen, S. (1989). Perceptual role taking and protodeclarative pointing in autism. British Journal of 
Developmental Psychology, 7(2), 113-127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.1989.tb00793.x 

Cloitre, M., Stolbach, B. C., Herman, J. L., Kolk, B. V. D., Pynoos, R., Wang, J., & Petkova, E. (2009). A 
developmental approach to complex PTSD: Childhood and adult cumulative trauma as predictors of symptom 
complexity. Journal of traumatic stress, 22(5), 399-408. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.20444 

Cook, A., Spinazzola, J., Ford, J., Lanktree, C., Blaustein, M., Cloitre, M., DeRosa, R., Hubbard, R., Kagan, R., 
Liataud, J., Mallah, K., Olafson, E., & van der Kolk, B., (2017). Complex trauma in children and 
adolescents. Psychiatric annals, 35(5), 390-398. https://doi.org/10.3928/00485713-20050501-05 

Corden, B., Chilvers, R., & Skuse, D. (2008). Avoidance of emotionally arousing stimuli predicts social–perceptual 
impairment in Asperger's syndrome. Neuropsychologia, 46(1), 137-147. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.08.005 

Dalton, K. M., Nacewicz, B. M., Johnstone, T., Schaefer, H. S., Gernsbacher, M. A., Goldsmith, H. H., Alexander, 
A. L., & Davidson, R. J. (2005). Gaze fixation and the neural circuitry of face processing in autism. Nature 
neuroscience, 8(4), 519. https://doi:10.1038/nn1421 

Dichter, G. S., Felder, J. N., & Bodfish, J. W. (2009). Autism is characterized by dorsal anterior cingulate 
hyperactivation during social target detection. Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 4(3), 215-226. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsp017 

Duerden, E. G., Oatley, H. K., Mak-Fan, K. M., McGrath, P. A., Taylor, M. J., Szatmari, P., & Roberts, S. W. 
(2012). Risk factors associated with self-injurious behaviors in children and adolescents with autism spectrum 
disorders. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 42(11), 2460-2470. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-012-1497-9 

Haruvi-Lamdan, N., Horesh, D., & Golan, O. (2018). PTSD and autism spectrum disorder: Co-morbidity, gaps in 
research, and potential shared mechanisms. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000298 

Higgins, E. S., & George, M. S. (2013). Neuroscience of clinical psychiatry: The pathophysiology of behavior and 
mental illness. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 

Humphrey, N., & Lewis, S. (2008). “Make Me Normal” the Views and Experiences of Pupils on the Autistic 
Spectrum in Mainstream Secondary Schools. Autism, 12(1), 23-46. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361307085267 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997. 612(a) (5). 

Individuals with Disability Education Act. (2017, May 3). Sec. 300.530 (f). Retrieved March 16, 2020, from 
https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/e/300.530/f 

Kellerman, G. R., Fan, J., & Gorman, J. M. (2005). Auditory abnormalities in autism: Toward functional 
distinctions among findings. CNS Spectrums. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1092852900019738 

Leekam, S. R., Nieto, C., Libby, S. J., Wing, L., & Gould, J. (2007). Describing the sensory abnormalities of 
children and adults with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-006-0218-7 

Lord, C., Risi, S., & Pickles, A. (2004). Trajectory of language development in autistic spectrum disorders. 
In Developmental language disorders (pp. 18-41). Psychology Press. 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 3, No. 2; 2020 

 8 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 
 

Maiano, C., Normand, C. L., Salvas, M. C., Moullec, G., & Aimé, A. (2016). Prevalence of school bullying among 
youth with autism spectrum disorders: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Autism research, 9(6), 601-
615. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.1568 

Markram, K., & Markram, H. (2010). The intense world theory–a unifying theory of the neurobiology of 
autism. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 4, 224. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2010.00224 

Martineau, J., Andersson, F., Barthélémy, C., Cottier, J. P., & Destrieux, C. (2010). Atypical activation of the mirror 
neuron system during perception of hand motion in autism. Brain research, 1320, 168-175. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2010.01.035 

Maurice, C. E., Green, G. E., & Luce, S. C. (1996). Behavioral intervention for young children with autism: A 
manual for parents and professionals. Pro-ed. 

Mayes, S. D., Gorman, A. A., Hillwig-Garcia, J., & Syed, E. (2013). Suicide ideation and attempts in children with 
autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 7(1), 109-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2012.07.009 

Minshawi, N. F., Hurwitz, S., Fodstad, J. C., Biebl, S., Morriss, D. H., & McDougle, C. J. (2014). The association 
between self-injurious behaviors and autism spectrum disorders. Psychology research and behavior 
management, 7, 125. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S44635 

Myers, D. G., & DeWall, C. N. (2017). Psychology in everyday life. New York: Worth, Macmillan Learning. 

National Autistic Society (2006). B is for bullied. London: National Autistic Society. 

Park, W. J., Schauder, K. B., Zhang, R., Bennetto, L., & Tadin, D. (2017). High internal noise and poor external 
noise filtering characterize perception in autism spectrum disorder. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 17584. 
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-17676-5 

Pelphrey, K. A., Sasson, N. J., Reznick, J. S., Paul, G., Goldman, B. D., & Piven, J. (2002). Visual scanning of 
faces in autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 32(4), 249-261. https://doi.org/0162-
3257/02/0800-0249/0 

Perry, B. D., Pollard, R. A., Blakley, T. L., Baker, W. L., & Vigilante, D. (1995). Childhood trauma, the 
neurobiology of adaptation, and “use‐dependent” development of the brain: How “states” become 
“traits”. Infant Mental Health Journal, 16(4), 271-291. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-
0355(199524)16:4<271::AID-IMHJ2280160404>3.0.CO;2-B 

Rattaz, C., Michelon, C., & Baghdadli, A. (2015). Symptom severity as a risk factor for self‐injurious behaviours 
in adolescents with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 59(8), 730-741. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.12177 

Richards, C., Oliver, C., Nelson, L., & Moss, J. (2012). Self‐injurious behaviour in individuals with autism 
spectrum disorder and intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 56(5), 476-489. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01537.x 

Richer, J. M., & Coss, R. G. (1976). Gaze aversion in autistic and normal children. Acta Psychiatrica 
Scandinavica, 53(3), 193-210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.1976.tb00074.x 

Riquelme, I., Hatem, S. M., & Montoya, P. (2016). Abnormal Pressure Pain, Touch Sensitivity, Proprioception, 
and Manual Dexterity in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Neural Plasticity. 
https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/1723401 

Rutherford, M. D., & Towns, A. M. (2008). Scan path differences and similarities during emotion perception in 
those with and without autism spectrum disorders. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 38(7), 
1371-1381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-007-0525-7 

Senju, A., & Johnson, M. H. (2009). The eye contact effect: mechanisms and development. Trends in cognitive 
sciences, 13(3), 127-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.11.009 

Sigman, M., & McGovern, C. W. (2005). Improvement in cognitive and language skills from preschool to 
adolescence in autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 35(1), 15-23. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-004-1027-5 

Soke, G. N., Rosenberg, S. A., Hamman, R. F., Fingerlin, T., Robinson, C., Carpenter, L., Giarello, E., Lee, L., 
Wiggins, L. D., Durkin, M. S., & DiGuiseppi, C. (2016). Brief report: prevalence of self-injurious behaviors 
among children with autism spectrum disorder—a population-based study. Journal of autism and 
developmental disorders, 46(11), 3607-3614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-016-2879-1 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 3, No. 2; 2020 

 9 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 
 

Streeck-Fischer, A., & van der Kolk, B. A. (2000). Down will come baby, cradle and all: Diagnostic and therapeutic 
implications of chronic trauma on child development. Australian and New Zealand Journal of 
Psychiatry, 34(6), 903-918. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1614.2000.00827.x 

Symes, W., & Humphrey, N. (2010). Peer-group indicators of social inclusion among pupils with autistic spectrum 
disorders (ASD) in mainstream secondary schools: A comparative study. School Psychology 
International, 31(5), 478-494. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034310382496 

Tomchek, S. D., & Dunn, W. (2007). Sensory processing in children with and without autism: A comparative study 
using the short sensory profile. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61(2), 190-200. 
https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.61.2.190 

Tomchek, S. D., Huebner, R. A., & Dunn, W. (2014). Patterns of sensory processing in children with an autism 
spectrum disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2014.06.006 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). The Condition of Education 2005 
(NCES 2005–094). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.  

Quill, K. A. (1997). Instructional considerations for young children with autism: The rationale for visually cued 
instruction. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 27(6), 697-714. 
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025806900162 

Zablotsky, B., Bradshaw, C. P., Anderson, C. M., & Law, P. (2014). Risk factors for bullying among children with 
autism spectrum disorders. Autism, 18(4), 419-427. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361313477920 

 
Copyrights 

Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal. 

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 

 


