Inclusion Increases

 In The Politics of Autism, I write about social services, special education, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 

Government Accountability Office, Special Education: More Students with Disabilities Were Educated in General Education Settings, but State Trends Varied Widely. GAO-26-107814 Published: Jul 02, 2026.

Under federal special education law, students with disabilities are to be educated alongside their peers without disabilities to the maximum extent appropriate. Nationally, the number of students with disabilities in the general education classroom (gen ed) for at least 40 percent of their day increased 25 percent from school year 2012–13 through school year 2023–24 (see figure). The largest increase came from students with disabilities in gen ed for at least 80 percent of their day. The total number of students with disabilities increased 21 percent during this period. GAO also found the share of students with disabilities in gen ed for much of their day increased in 42 of 50 states and the District of Columbia (no data were available for New Mexico for school year 2023–24). However, within states, changes over this period varied widely. For example, the District of Columbia had the largest increase (7.7 percentage points), while in North Dakota the share of students with disabilities in gen ed for at least 40 percent of their day decreased by 3.2 percentage points.

Inclusion: It's Complicated

 In The Politics of Autism, I write about special education and inclusion.

Dwyer, P., Nosova, E., Kermond, C., & Leadbitter, K. (2026). Inclusion, but not necessarily integration: Centring student perspectives and needs in education. Autism, 0(0).

The concept of inclusion is central to educational research and policy, with international conventions recognising disabled children’s right to inclusive education (United Nations, 2006, art. 24). However, inclusion is defined and understood in many different ways (Cigman, 2007; Dwyer, 2023; Winzer, 2009). Sometimes, educational inclusion is a synonym for integration: physical placement of disabled and neurodivergent students alongside non-disabled and neurotypical students (e.g. Dalgaard et al., 2022), although this could involve autistic people merely being tolerated, or having to adapt to the majority’s preferences (Weaver et al., 2021). Today, the dominant definition of inclusion – especially in the Global North – could be called ‘integration plus’: integration with supports so that all students can fully participate in diverse school communities and experiences (e.g. Ferguson, 1995; Pellicano et al., 2018). However, making an environment work well for everyone is not easy, and some autistic young people have articulated the basis of a radically different understanding of inclusion that one might call ‘integration-agnostic’. They suggested that inclusion is about belonging, being supported and feeling valued, regardless of whether one’s peers are neurotypical/non-disabled or neurodivergent/disabled (Goodall, 2020). We argue that a similar integration-agnostic understanding has the potential to transform education systems by increasing meaningful inclusiveness.

What Is Inclusion?

 In The Politics of Autism, I write about special education and inclusion.

Perrelet, V., Veyre, A., Chawki, L., Margot, C., & Cappe, É. (2025). What are we targeting when we support inclusive education for autistic students? A systematic review of 233 empirical studies and call for community partnerships. Autism, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613251352223

Lay abstract:

Multiple complex considerations are involved in supporting mainstream schooling for autistic students. This systematic review aimed to describe inclusive education interventions and outcome measures for autistic students. A total of 233 experimental studies were analyzed. Furthermore, consultation sessions with autistic people, parents, and inclusive education professionals were organized to enable in-depth interpretation of the results using a participatory approach. Cognitive-behavioral interventions were the most common intervention type in the international scientific literature, and social interactions of autistic children were the most frequently targeted outcomes. A lack of consensus on how to measure school inclusion and participation was found. Although some studies considered perspectives on the acceptability of interventions, most of them failed to evaluate implementation aspects. The lived experience experts highlighted tensions between the systematic review findings and the practical realities of inclusive education; this led to discussions about the possible application of the United Nations’ definition of inclusion. Overall, empirical research supporting the inclusion of autistic students aligns more closely with the concept of integration, which requires students to adapt to the school context. The focus of inclusion has been shifting from minimizing the unique traits of students with special needs to adapting the environment for them to take a greater part in school activities.

Autistic Perspectives on Employment

In The Politics of Autism, I discuss the employment of adults with autism and other developmental disabilities.

Southey, S., Morris, R., Nicholas, D. et al. Autistic Perspectives on Employment: A Scoping Review. J Occup Rehabil (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-023-10163-x

Across the studies reviewed, participants demonstrated a depth of self-awareness and ability to clearly articulate personal skills and strengths as well as their own unique sensory, communication, and accommodation needs in the workplace. This nuanced articulation of experiences across studies bolstered the applicability of the thematic findings to generate practical changes in workplace policies and procedures. While employers are ultimately responsible for setting role expectations and approving accommodation requests, this highlights the benefits to employers of collaborating with employees in decision-making whenever possible. The more self-awareness an employee has about their own strengths and needs, and the more opportunity they have to explore and discuss this with their employer, could lead to greater opportunity for role alignment and meaningful accommodations. For example, job matching employees’ personal strengths to role and responsibilities is known to be a key factor influencing successful outcomes including job retention and sustainability [11].

Similarly, participants across the studies reviewed emphasized the need for an individualized approach to workplace communication and accommodations and drew attention to barriers generated by employers taking a more generalized approach to processes or implementation of accommodations. At the same time, participants shared mixed feelings about the benefits and risks of disclosure of diagnosis in the workplace, which is often required to access formal accommodations. These findings reinforce a recent push in the literature to hold employers and organizations more responsible for fostering an inclusive workplace environment and culture where invisible disability is normalized to the point that the benefits of disclosure outweigh the potential risks [64, 65]. As highlighted in this study, sensory aspects of the workplace were closely associated with professional and personal well-being and mental health outcomes. Consideration of sensory differences across all employees may be a beneficial aspect of inclusive workplace environments particularly for autistic clients who are more likely than the general population to have heightened sensitivity to sensory stimuli and who also may hesitate to disclose this for fear of ostracization [66,67,68].

Participants across studies drew attention to the impact of relationships with colleagues and supervisors on experiences in the workplace. Prior research has identified communication barriers and needs as a key consideration in workplaces with autistic employees [5, 69], but this review highlights broader relational aspects as well—beyond when and how to communicate. For example, participants spoke about the importance of workplaces where all employees align with a culture of awareness and acceptance of neurodivergence, and working alongside colleagues who demonstrate caring, supportive, and respectful attitudes about autism and differences in interpretation of social cues and interactions. Participants identified peer supports both in and outside of the workplace as contributing to positive outcomes for success. These findings align with organizational research identifying the benefits of workplace culture and peer support on factors of workplace success, including long-term sustainment of knowledge and skills training, and employee well-being [70,71,72].

Disability Representation

In The Politics of Autism, I discuss the civil rights of people with autism and other disabilities. Employment remains a challenge.

Andrew Pulrang at Forbes:

Every casting of a model with a disability, especially a visible one, sets a precedent for hiring more. This increases the chances that people with disabilities might realistically make a successful career in fashion modeling. It’s a pretty simple equation, though of course not very large-scale in an industry as relatively small as modeling.

The same hope is more significant in other professions where people with disabilities have traditionally been seen as longshots, niche performers, or incompatible – like medicine, acting, and sports. The hope for disabled people is that one or two high-profile disabled people can generate more opportunities for others, including possibly themselves.

Seeing disabled people in jobs and activities that seem to contradict old, ableist ideas about disability can help change those ideas. Candace Owens’ assumption that the sight of a woman in a wheelchair is unattractive and therefore incompatible with modeling is a case in point. And deliberately hiring and featuring disabled models is a simple, direct way of demonstrating that disability is entirely compatible with beauty and sex appeal.

California Could Do Better on Special Education

In The Politics of Autism, I write about special education and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Jeannie Myung and Heather J. Hough of Policy Analysis for California Education have a report titled

"Organizing Schools to Serve Students with Disabilities: A Summary of the PACE Policy Research Panel."

More than 725,000 of California’s K–12 students qualified for special education services in 2018–19, but they entered a system that is often ill equipped to serve them.  

...

Despite the well-established consensus on the benefits of early identification, California continues to fall below national averages in identifying and serving infants, toddlers, and preschoolers with developmental disabilities. Ideally, all children should be screened, but fewer than 1 in 3 California children receive developmental screenings, and California ranks 43rd in developmental screening rates for young children (Hunt, 2020).

After they have been diagnosed, children age 3 and older receive special education services based on an Individualized Education Program (IEP), a legal document that specifies the instruction, supports, and services the child requires to make progress in school. Learning disabilities are diagnosed by (a) a severe discrepancy between student aptitude for learning and academic performance; (b) patterns of basic cognitive processing strengths or weaknesses impairing a student’s ability to learn; or (c) failure to respond positively to an individually customized instructional intervention (Farkas, 2020).

After comparing students with similar needs for academic assistance, students of all racial/ ethnic subgroup categories and most levels of need are identified for special education at a lower rate in California than national averages. And even though African American students are identified for special education at higher rates relative to their representation among all students, African American students who are low performing in reading and math are actually less likely to be identified for special education than similarly low-performing White students (Farkas, 2020).10 Low performance is associated with many causes other than disability; however, the lower likelihood of a low-performing African American student receiving special education services raises equity concerns, particularly if special education services are the primary resource available in schools to help low-performing students.

...
 While each student’s LRE is individually determined by their IEP team, the law states that student placement should maximize opportunities for students to interact with their peers without disabilities. However, in 2017–18, California had one of the lowest inclusion rates in the country: 56 percent compared to a national average of 63.4 percent (Humphrey, Gamse, Myung,& Cottingham, 2020).

Culture and Inclusion

In The Politics of Autism, I write about special education and inclusion.

Liz Pellicano, Sven Bölte, Aubyn Stahmer have an editorial at Autism titled "The Current Illusion of Educational Inclusion."

[T]hose of us committed to the ideal of inclusion also need to work more generally, across all jurisdictions, to promote cultural change among educators, parents, and peers. All too often at the moment, each of these groups can talk the language of inclusion without adhering to its value. We know that autistic students are more likely to be successfully included if school leadership is supportive (e.g. Horrocks et al., 2008; Praisner, 2003). We know too that the attitude and awareness of peers can be vital in facilitating acceptance (Tonnsen and Hahn, 2015; see also Williams et al., 2017) and that education about autism can improve these attitudes (Carter and Kennedy, 2006). Surveys show, however, that the majority of parents and teachers remain skeptical toward inclusion

Study Finds that Inclusion Works

In The Politics of Autism, I write about special education and inclusion.

The National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research (CALDER) finds in a new report that inclusion works. The abstract:

We use longitudinal data on all high school students in Washington State, including postsecondary education and workforce outcomes, to investigate predictors of intermediate and postsecondary outcomes for students with disabilities. We pay particular attention to career and technical education (CTE) enrollment and the extent of inclusion in general education classrooms, as prior research suggests these factors may be particularly important in influencing the outcomes of students with disabilities. We
estimate models that compare students with other students within the same school district, who are receiving special education services for the same disability, and have similar baseline measures of academic performance and other demographic information. We find generally weak relationships between CTE enrollment in any particular grade and intermediate and postsecondary outcomes for students with disabilities, though we replicate earlier findings that students with disabilities who are enrolled in a “concentration” of CTE courses have higher rates of employment after graduation than
students with disabilities who are similar in other observable ways but are enrolled in fewer CTE courses. We also find consistently strong evidence that students with disabilities who spend more time in general education classrooms experience better outcomes—fewer absences, higher academic performance, higher rates of grade progression and on-time graduation, and higher rates of college attendance and employment—than students with disabilities who are similar in other observable ways but spend less time in general education classrooms. [emphasis added]

A Case for Inclusion

In The Politics of Autism, I write about special education and inclusion.

Vikram Jaiswal is an associate professor of psychology at the University of Virginia.  Tauna Szymanski, an attorney and volunteer chair of the Arlington Inclusion Task Force.  They are the parents of a child with autism. With an introduction by Valerie Strauss at The Washington Post, they describe their 7-year-old autistic daughter's exclusion from regular education, and make a plea for inclusion.

Over 30 years of research has shown that students with disabilities learn more and better when they are given the supports they need in regular classrooms, alongside peers who do not have disabilities.

For example, in a recent series of studies[2], Jennifer Kurth and Ann Mastergeorge compared autistic middle schoolers who had been educated since kindergarten in either regular or self-contained classrooms. This placement in kindergarten was determined by Zip code, not ability: Those in the regular classrooms lived in a district that did not have self-contained classrooms; all children were educated together. Students in the two groups had similar IQ scores (none above 70), but those educated in regular classrooms scored five to nine times higher than those educated in self-contained classrooms on every measure of reading, writing, and math achievement given.

This is a dramatic difference, but the explanation is simple: opportunity and access. The autistic students in the regular classrooms had more opportunities to learn. They spent almost 90 percent of their time engaged in instructional activities; those in the self-contained classrooms did so just 60 percent of the time. Most of the rest of their time was spent taking breaks.

Autistic students in the regular classrooms also had more exposure to grade-level material: The curriculum they used was aligned with the one used by the students without disabilities almost 90 percent of the time. In contrast, the curriculum used in the self-contained classrooms was aligned just 0.1 percent of the time. Over one-third of the instruction involved no curriculum at all.

The research on the benefits of educating disabled children in regular classrooms could not be clearer. No study conducted since the late 1970s has shown an academic advantage for students educated in separate settings, but plenty have shown the reverse. The research on the social benefits of including disabled children is similarly impressive: Studies show that disabled children make more friends and feel more connected to the school community when they are educated alongside nondisabled children. There are benefits for the nondisabled peers too: Studies show they exhibit more positive attitudes about diversity and even experience increased academic engagement themselves.

Preschool Inclusion

In The Politics of Autism, I discuss early childhood education.

Michelle Diament reports at Disability Scoop:

Federal officials say that all children with disabilities should be able to attend preschool alongside their typically-developing peers.

Nearly four months after requesting public feedback on the issue, the U.S. Departments of Education and Health and Human Services are jointly issuing guidance to states, school districts and early childhood providers urging them to make a place for kids with special needs.

From the joint statement: 

Research supports the benefits of inclusion for young children with and without disabilities. Studies have shown that individualized evidence-based strategies for children with disabilities can be implemented successfully in inclusive early childhood programs. 7,8 Children with disabilities, including those with the most significant disabilities and the highest needs, can make significant developmental and learning progress in inclusive settings.9,10,11 Some studies have shown that children with disabilities in inclusive settings experienced greater cognitive and communication development than children with disabilities who were in separate settings, with this being particularly apparent among children with more significant 3 disabilities.12,13 Further, children with disabilities tend to have similar levels of engagement as their typically developing peers, 14,15 and are more likely to practice newly acquired skills in inclusive settings as compared to separate settings. 16 Likewise, research suggests that children’s growth and learning are related to their peers’ skills and the effects are most pronounced for children with disabilities.17 Highquality inclusion that begins early and continues into school likely produces the strongest outcomes. Studies have shown that children with disabilities who spend more time in general education classes tend to be absent fewer days from school and have higher test scores in reading and math than those who spend less time in general education classes, 18, 19 and spending more time in general education classes was related to a higher probability of employment and higher earnings.20 In addition to making learning and achievement gains, children with disabilities in inclusive early childhood programs also demonstrate stronger social-emotional skills than their peers in separate settings. 21 These social benefits are robust and can continue into elementary school and beyond.22 Studies have found that children with disabilities in inclusive classrooms demonstrated more social interactions with peers with and without disabilities, had larger networks of friends, and were more socially competent compared to children in separate settings. 23,24,25, 26, 27 Importantly, while studies indicate that inclusive services produce benefits for children with disabilities, these desired outcomes are achieved only when young children with disabilities are included several days per week in social and learning opportunities with typically developing peers, 28 and specialized instructional strategies are used to meet children’s individual needs.29 Systems supports such as resources for professional development, ongoing coaching and collaboration, and time for communication and planning are critical to ensure that programs and personnel can adequately meet the needs of individual children.30,31 Additionally, the developmental benefits of early childhood inclusion can be lost if children are placed in separate settings in preschool, kindergarten, and elementary school. 32 Inclusion in early childhood settings followed by inclusion in elementary school can sustain these developmental gains.

Educational Inclusion Varies by State

At Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, Jennifer A. Kurth has an article titled "Educational Placement of Students With Autism: The Impact of State of Residence."  The abstract:

Typically, child characteristics such as IQ and severity of autism symptoms are thought to determine educational placement. The present study examines external factors, including state of residence and state funding formulas, to determine their potential influence on placement outcomes. Findings reveal that considerable variations exist among states in placing students with autism spectrum disorders in inclusive, mainstreaming, self-contained, and separate schools. This variation suggests that factors beyond child characteristics, such as IQ, play a major role in educational placement decisions. Furthermore, states in the Eastern United States tend to have more restrictive placement rates than states in the Western United States. State special education funding was found to have a minimal impact on placement outcomes. As a whole, it is unlikely that child characteristics alone determine placement outcomes.

From the article:

States range in the percentage of students who are educated in general education settings for 80% or more of the school day from 8% (Washington, D.C.) to 62% (Iowa). The average percent of students with ASDs in the 51 states (50 U.S. states and Washington, D.C.) was 36.6%, with a standard deviation of 10.8. Inspection of Figure 1 further reveals that 7 of the 10 most inclusive states are West of the Mississippi River (Western United States). Of the 10 least inclusive states, 7 of those states are in the Eastern United States (East of the Mississippi River).

...

A Victory in Florida

An earlier post discussed Henry Frost, a Florida student waging an online fight to attend school.  State Impact reports:

After waiting 57 days since the school year began, Henry Frost will be able to cross the street and walk less than the length of two football fields to attend his neighborhood middle school.

Frost has been taking courses at home while engaged in a dispute with Hillsborough County schools over where he should attend. Frost took his cause to Facebook and other social media and has drawn world-wide attention.

Frost is autistic and has several physical impairments, including hearing loss.

After more than 14 hours of meetings to negotiate an education plan and services for Frost, Hillsborough school officials agreed Tuesday to let Frost attend the school of his choice.

Does Inclusion Work?

A number of posts have discussed inclusion.  E. Michael Foster and Erin Pearson have an article in Pediatrics titled "Is Inclusivity an Indicator of Quality of Care for Children With Autism in Special Education?"  Here is the abstract:

OBJECTIVE To determine whether the proportion of time spent in an inclusive educational setting, a process indicator of the quality of schooling for children with autism, improves key outcomes.

METHODS Patients were 484 children and youth educated in special education with a primary diagnosis of autism in the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2. These individuals were ages 20 to 23 in 2007. We used propensity-score inverse probability of treatment weights to eliminate the effect of multiple confounders. A causal interpretation of the effect of inclusivity on key educational and functional outcomes still depends on a critical assumption, that inclusivity is not confounded by remaining, omitted confounders.

RESULTS Compared with children with autism who were not educated in an inclusive setting (n = 215), children with autism who spent 75% to 100% of their time in a general education classroom (n = 82) were no more likely to attend college (P = .40), not drop out of high school (P = .24), or have an improved functional cognitive score (P = .99) after controlling for key confounders.

CONCLUSIONS We find no systematic indication that the level of inclusivity improves key future outcomes. Research on educational and functional outcomes for children with autism can benefit from data on large samples of children educated in real-world settings, such as the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2, but more nuanced indicators should be developed to measure the quality of special education for children with autism.

Educational Placement in New Jersey

Inclusion is a major issue in the education of ASD students. The Press of Atlantic City reports:

The number of students in New Jersey public schools diagnosed with autism has almost doubled in the past five years, to more than 13,000 in 2010. More of these children are now being educated in their hometown schools.

But as their number has grown, so has the debate about how and where to best educate children with autism.

A review of special education placement data by The Press of Atlantic City shows the percentage of autistic students ages 6 to 21 sent to specialized schools dropped from 40 percent in 2005 to 28 percent in 2010.

While advocates and experts support keeping the children in their hometown districts, they say many schools are still not equipped to offer the specialized programs autistic children need to learn to interact with others.

“A high number of students are still going to out-of-district placements,” said Diana Autin, co-director of the Statewide Parent Advocacy Network, or SPAN. “And even if they are kept in district, they are often placed in programs that are still very segregated.”

About one in four autistic students spends most of the school day in a regular class, Department of Education data show, an improvement from 2005 when the ratio was less than one in five. But almost half are spending at least half of their day in a separate special education class.

A 2010 report in the International Journal of Special Education indicates that autistic students placed in regular classrooms performed better academically than those placed in special programs. But research on the issue is new and limited, and advocates warn there is no one-size-fits-all placement.

From: Jennifer A. Kurth and Ann M. Mastergeorge, " Academic And Cognitive Profiles Of Students With Autism: Implications For Classroom Practice And Placement," International Journal of Special Education 25 (Number 2, 2010):

In all academic areas, students with autism who had received all of their math and language arts instruction in general education outperformed those students who had received their instruction in special education settings in skill areas that are traditionally difficult for students with autism (abstract skills). These findings suggest that inclusion is academically beneficial to students with autism in this sample. The small sample size and geographically limited nature of the present study preclude broad generalizations; more research is thus warranted with larger sample sizes in more diverse areas.

Non-Inclusive Inclusion

Lisa Jo Rudy writes that "inclusion" programs are a fine idea, but...

All too often, though, community programs for people with autism are simply dead ends. They don't provide a stepping stone or scaffolding to help the child, teen or family with autism build the skills to join the general community. Families can take part in these special programs, or not. But there's no support for or interest in taking the next step - or even in creating programs to support families with older or adult children on the autism spectrum.

I just got off the phone with a representative of a music education program for children with autism - a wonderful idea, in theory. She seemed offended, however, when I asked whether autistic music students perform at recitals with typical music students. She seemed very uncomfortable with the thought that her instructors might facilitate inclusion of autistic music students in typical school bands. Every aspect of the music program is, apparently, hermetically sealed off from the rest of the world.

I've seen many sports programs available only to young children with autism. These programs, run by well-meaning adults, are specifically geared to teaching social skills rather than sports skills. There's no interaction between the "special" and the "typical" youth sports directors. As a result, when the children age out of such programs they're no more able to play a typical sport than they were before they started. And now, as they begin to enter their teen years, they have no place to go.

Inclusion

In Tablet, Marjorie Ingall writes about inclusion in Jewish schools:

I recently chatted with Dori Frumin Kirshner, the executive director of Matan (the name means “gift”), an organization that supports Jewish communities in educating children with special learning needs.

“The Orthodox have always taken on responsibility for educating all Jews,” she told me. “But Conservative, Reform, unaffiliated, and non-denominational institutions—well, the going attitude was, ‘Sorry, we can’t handle that. Bye. It’s not you; it’s us.’ The latent message, of course, was, ‘It’s you.’ ”

Things are slowly changing. More Jewish organizations are calling Matan for help, and a number of Jewish day schools are trying to be more embracing of kids with learning differences. “There’s a big difference from 10 years ago,” Kirshner said. “But it still takes time, attitude change, and advocacy. Clergy, early-childhood, and educational directors, the president of the shul, they need to step up more and take the full responsibility off parents’ shoulders. This is everyone’s bag. It’s a health and human services issue, an educational issue, and a cultural issue—because there are so many kids out there with no entry points to the beauty of Jewish culture.”

Inclusion, Kirshner said, was a policy equal in importance to the civil rights movement. “You don’t have to be from the South or African-American to feel in your kishkes that it’s wrong to leave children separate,” she said. “I feel strongly—just as my mom, a white Jew who grew up in Shreveport and marched and got arrested for civil rights felt—this is wrong. It’s wrong to tell people there’s no room for them at the Jewish communal table. They have to start adding other chairs.”

NorthJersey.com has a piece on inclusion:

Certainly, the subject of inclusion has been receiving a great deal of attention recently. New Jersey’s Statewide Parent Advocacy Network created the New Jersey Inclusive Child Care Project, a project funded by the New Jersey Department of Human Services. The project’s goals include providing information, training and technical assistance on the inclusion of children from birth through age eight in typical preschool, childcare and after-school programs. Their resources include a comprehensive program called Finding Our Way Together, a resource guide available on the website that provides information on inclusion of children at child-care centers, family child care, and after-school care. NJ SPAN is also piloting a collaborative project with the NJ School-Age Child Care Coalition to promote inclusion in high poverty, high immigrant communities. They are providing free resources on the laws dealing with inclusion in programs before and after school.

Also see a related article on parent perspectives.