For fifty years, debates about special education have revolved around one big question: Where should students with disabilities (SWDs) be taught? Should they be in general classrooms full-time (full inclusion), or should there be a range of placement options, including specialised programs?

But what if that’s the wrong question? According to researchers Douglas Fuchs, Allison Gilmour, and Jeanne Wanzek, we’ve been looking at this issue the wrong way. In their recently published paper, they argue that the real debate should not be where students are educated but how, a paper I mentioned earlier on this blog. When we focus on that, they argue, the evidence becomes much clearer.

The Old Debate: Inclusion vs. Continuum of Services

The traditional battle lines in special education are well known.

• Abolitionists argue that general classrooms should serve all students, regardless of disability. The alternative, they claim, leads to segregation, social isolation, and lower expectations.
• Conservationists believe that while inclusion is valuable, some SWDs need more intensive, specialised instruction that simply isn’t possible in a regular classroom.

For years, both sides have cited research to support their respective views. However, as Fuchs et al. demonstrate, most of the studies used to argue that inclusion improves academic outcomes are of limited quality. Correlational studies, for example, don’t control for key variables like prior academic performance or level of need. In other words, students placed in general classrooms often perform better not because of the placement itself but because they were already higher performing to begin with.

Does that mean segregated special education settings are better? Not necessarily. Instead, the real takeaway is that we should stop focusing so much on where students are taught and start paying more attention to how they are taught.

What the Research Actually Says

When the researchers reviewed 50 years of studies, they found that the most reliable evidence didn’t come from placement studies at all. It came from studies on instruction. And the strongest finding?

💡 Intensive, specialised instruction improves outcomes for students with disabilities.

Meta-analyses and experimental studies consistently demonstrate that high-dosage tutoring, small-group interventions, and structured, evidence-based instruction yield significantly improved academic achievement. These gains are especially evident in reading and math. These interventions often occur outside the general classroom. This is not because inclusion is bad, but because these students need more than a typical classroom can provide.

The Problem with Full Inclusion

Fuchs et al. aren’t against inclusion, but they warn that full inclusion—when implemented without the proper support—can actually harm students with disabilities. The general classroom, as it exists today, isn’t designed to meet the needs of all learners. Therefore, expecting it to accommodate every student without major structural changes suddenly is unrealistic.

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) are often cited as solutions; however, there’s limited evidence that they are effective at scale. Meanwhile, we have decades of evidence that intensive, direct instruction is effective. Yet, in many schools, these interventions are underfunded, underused, or outright ignored in favour of an “inclusion-at-all-costs” mindset.

The Real Takeaway

Fuchs et al. argue that a mindset shift is needed. Instead of asking, “Where should students with disabilities be placed?”, we should be asking:

✅ What kind of instruction do they need to succeed?
✅ How can we provide it effectively?
✅ Are we basing our policies on solid evidence or feel-good ideology?

For students with disabilities, placement should be a tool, not a goal. Some will thrive in general classrooms with the proper support, while others will need specialised instruction outside that setting. The key is to ensure that all students receive what they need to reach their full potential. We should not force a one-size-fits-all approach.

Final Thought

This debate isn’t just about education policy. It’s about equity, one could argue. True inclusion isn’t just putting students in the same room. It ensures that every student—regardless of their challenges—receives the education they deserve. This paper argues that the best way to achieve this could be not by obsessing over where they learn, but by focusing on how they learn best. I must admit that I like the idea, but I wonder if it’s the solution to all the current issues surrounding pro and con inclusive education. What are your thoughts?