Department of: Accounting and finance Extension

Section: 1
Assignments for: Inclusiveness course/
Title: Define and explain integration, segregation and inclusion separately in clear and
with understandable language

Prepared by: Group Assignment

Name ID. Number

1. Deginet mesfin BEE/6871/13

2. Dereje Solomon BEE/1247/13
3. Adisu Belay BEE/5451/13
4. Bereket Gizachew BEE/6132/13

Submitted To: Instructor Banchigize Amogne/MA/

Submission Date: April 02,2022
 Introduction

The "Education for All" (EFA) movement is a global commitment to provide equal quality basic
education to all children, youth and adults. This commitment arose in the context of the World
Conference on Education for All of UNESCO held in Jomtien, Thailand, in 1990 (Inter-Agency
Commission, 1990) and was later revised and discussed in the Standard Rules on the
Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities in 1993; the World Conference on
Special Needs Education. Access and Quality held in 1994; the International Conference of
Dakar in 2000 and the International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2006.
What later on has been known as the "Salamanca Statement", is the result of the World
Conference held in 1994 where the term "inclusion" appeared for the first time in the context of
special education. The use of this term meant a step beyond the concept of "integration", which
was used until then to designate the actions towards integrating children and young people with
special needs in mainstream education and community. As reflected in the Salamanca Statement,
“the experience in many countries demonstrates that the integration of children and youth with
special educational needs is best achieved within inclusive schools that serve all children within
a community. It is within the context of special educational needs can achieve the fullest
educational progress and social integration” (UNESCO, 1994:18). The aim of this paper is to
make a distinction, semantic and theoretically, between the concepts of „inclusion‟ and
'integration'; identify the sociological logic underlying each of them and analyze the diverse
social-educational practices that derive from both.
 Abstract

In considering what to do with the normally existing diversity in a group of children coming to a
school intended for all, the concepts of integration, segregation, and inclusion must be
considered as characteristics of school aims, organization, and work. Questions related to these
concepts are particularly pertinent in a discussion of special education. In the context of the
schools, which are meant to be "one school for all" by parliamentary mandate, the question
should be why anyone should be excluded or segregated. Regarding the issues in this light, rather
than considering why someone should be included, would make the challenges for regular and
special education much clearer. If real integration is the aim, then the challenge becomes
accepting more diversity. Diversity in learning abilities should be regarded as something positive
and valuable, rather than something to eliminate. Looking at integration in this light will mean
challenges for educational research as well, since it will become more important to examine
integration processes than to study bases for exclusion. It will be necessary to stop talking of
integration as a method or measure and to stop referring to individuals as "integrated." Some
results of a longitudinal show a picture of successful integration into school and later into the
workforce for a group of low-ability students included in mainstream classrooms who were
never designated "integrated," but who were merely included. Study of the processes that made
this happen will be more useful than theorizing about inclusion.
Definition and Explanation of Integration, Segregation and Inclusion

1. Segregation

Segregate means separate, separate someone from something or one thing from another. In this
way, segregationism separates, excludes and separates groups such as women, racial minorities,
religious minorities and people with disabilities from rest of the population with arguments of a
sexual, racial, religious, or ideological nature.
Regarding tourism, it would be to refer to travel, experiences only for some groups. We disagree
with this idea, since we do not want to separate anyone. If not, on the contrary, being able to
travel anyone regardless of their abilities.

Segregation occurs when students with disabilities are educated in separate environments
(classes or schools) designed for students with impairments or with a particular
impairment. Segregation is most blatant when students with disabilities are forced to go to a
school only for students with disabilities, but it also happens when students are educated in
separate classes in a regular school.

Segregation Advocates of segregated classrooms claim that students with special needs require
teachers who are trained in the area of special education trained to work with students who have
a variety of disabilities. For the past forty-five years the domain of special education has been
differentiating itself, developing analytical techniques and methodological skills which have
been designed to handle a large array of disabilities. People in this domain of professional
endeavor possess many knowledge‟s and skills which are vitally necessary to those with mental,
emotional and physical disabilities. To make an effort to destroy what has taken so long to
develop challenges my comprehension. It would be downright shortsighted, if not entirely blind,
to permit this to take place. Related to the body of knowledge and skills possessed by special
educators, there is also the perception that special education provides more individualized
attention for students with special needs. Once again, Norman Bauer (1994) suggests that:
Clearly these young people special needs students will be receiving treatment from a specialist,
in an environment which is conducive to a small specialist-client relationship.
 2. Integration

The idea of ”normality” is maintained, but it is considered that people who manage to adapt will
be considered part of society. The more rehabilitated and “normal” she is, the more integrated
she will be. Regarding the values of VolemValència, starting from the idea that we do not
consider that someone is normal and another is not, we also try to avoid this concept.

Integrated classrooms might be considered a happy medium between segregated and inclusive
classrooms; that is, students with disabilities spend some time with typical students but part of
the day is still spent in special ed (i.e., segregated environments). “Mainstreaming removes
students who are not functioning well in general education classes and returns them when they
are able to function academically and socially” (Snyder, Garriott, & Taylor, 2001). Advocates of
integration would argue that including students with disabilities when they are “academically and
socially ready” is advantageous for the students with disabilities as well as their typical peers.
Waiting until students with disabilities are “ready” will avoid the disadvantage of these students
feeling pressured to keep up with their typical peers. When students with disabilities are removed
until they are “ready”, the classroom teacher does not have to “spread her/himself as thin” as
she/he would if the students with disabilities were in his/her class 100% of the time. Teaching
that recognizes the needs of learners who have disabilities is sound instruction for all children.
That is the theory we all know. In reality, even our best trained and most willing teachers have
difficulty meeting the diverse needs of their heterogeneously grouped classes, let alone the
special requirements of students with moderate to severe disabilities. “I have twenty-five
children in my second grade class, and you can‟t expect me to take on more students with special
needs,” has become the oft-heard plea in school after school. This sentiment carries some grain
of truth to even the most hard-core supporters of inclusion and clearly illustrates one of the
legitimate road blocks to a full inclusionary program. (Chesley & Calaluce, Jr., 1997) Integrated,
or “less than full inclusion”, programs could be considered as having the strengths of segregated
programs but not the weaknesses. That is, students with disabilities still have the expertise and
individualized attention of the special ed teacher for part of their school day but they don‟t
experience the marginalization of being in a segregated setting full-time. Also, the theory is that
within an integrated setting, typical students experience the strengths of the students with
disabilities as well as a greater understanding of what it means to live in a diverse society.
However, it may be questioned whether integrated settings actually deliver the goods when it
comes to typical students increasing their understanding of students with disabilities.

Integration an effort to address the many issues with mainstreaming, in the 1970s, the
increasing focus within policy and practice in Australia (and elsewhere) became integration
(Doneau,1984). Integration involves making adaptations or accommodations to enable
participation within a mainstream experience or setting. Many education settings incorporate
segregated „special‟ classes or units in which children labelled „disabled‟ or „disordered‟ are
educated. Many of these units have a segregated, fenced off, playground. Children who attend
these segregated settings are often integrated into some whole-setting activities. In school
settings, for example, the whole school may come together for school assemblies, music or some
sport activities. Individual children may also attend part of the day in a mainstream class with
age-matched peers. Some children will also join together during outside playtime. Children who
attend „special‟ settings (for example, „special‟ schools) may be integrated for a day or more per
week at a mainstream setting.

While the focus on accommodations is critical, integration has been criticised for being
tokenistic. Many children who are integrated actually spend little time participating in the centre
or school community and most of their time in segregated activities, classes or settings. A major
criticism of integration is the implication that someone who is „different‟ needs to be „fitted in‟,
rather than working to include value and meet the needs of all children within the setting. In this
sense integration is often little more than moving „special education from as aggregated setting
into a mainstream one the perpetuation of exclusionary practices in the guise of integration.

Armstrong and Barton (2008,p.10) argue that „integration makes no requirement for the school to
effect radical change in its culture and organization because the expectation is that the child is
accommodated to existing structures and practices or at best, if organizational and pedagogical
adjustments are implemented they take place around the individual child or group of children
Identified as in need‟.
 3. Inclusion

Inclusion is associated with the ability of people to accept the other and live in
harmony accepting differences. If the same society promotes inclusive environments, barriers do
not exist and all people are included, since they have the same opportunities.
Inclusion does not focus on the disability or diagnosis of the person. It focuses on your
capabilities. It is based on the principles of fairness and cooperation. Inclusion accepts everyone
as they are, recognizing each person‟s individual characteristics without trying to bring them
closer to a “normalized” model of being, thinking and acting. Heterogeneity is understood as
normal. Therefore, the recognition and appreciation of diversity as a human right is proposed.

Advocates of inclusive classrooms argue that inclusion is not just the placement of students with
disabilities into regular classrooms, but rather a philosophy that is advantageous for all students.
Inclusion should be a guiding philosophy that embraces all children, not just those with
handicaps. An inclusive school is one where all children belong the athletic girl, the gifted boy,
the class clown, the recent immigrant who knows no English, the quiet one, and the “normal”
middle-of-the-road student. The school is a place where all can learn. (Rallis & Anderson, 1994)
It is not enough to include students within the same physical spaces. Inclusion is more concerned
with the arrangement of social spaces and the opportunities for students to explore and develop
within these. The interests of all students also need to be represented within schools, not just the
dominant of society.

Segregation, Integration and Inclusion

Inclusive Education (IE) is often defined as a journey or movement away from the kind of
segregation where children with particular difficulties have been put together with other children
whose needs are similar. Frederickson and Cline (2002 p63) contend that the creation of special
facilities segregating children with Special Educational Needs (SEN) from other children of their
own age can be stigmatizing; it also restricts access to important educational opportunities. Inthis
respect ques tions have been raised about the desirability of systems of special education which
are segr egated from mainstream schooling and which may be instrumental in contributing to
prejudice and bias in school and in later life. Moves to reverse segregation have been gathering
momentum since the mid 1960s with arguments that the integration of children with SEN into
mainstream schools would facilitate their access to and participation in society. More recent
decades have witnessed a further shift away from the integration perspective and its assumption
that additional arrangements are needed to accommodate the “special” learners within
mainstreams schooling systems that remain essentially unchanged, towards an inclusive
education which aims to restructure school systems to respond to the diversity of needs of all
learners. The shift towards inclusion evolved with the recognition that many children, including
those with disabilities, at sometime need special support services. Poverty, ethnicity, religion,
disability, gender or membership of a minority group may limit access toor marginalize within
education. Another key factor implicit in the IE paradigm shift is the growing belief that
methodological and organizational changes made at school level in response to the needs of a
particular group of learners experiencing difficulties can, under certain conditions benefit all
learners. Peters (2003 p23) asserts that “financing and support of educational services for
students with special needs is a primary concern for all countries, regardless of available
resources”. She verifies that a growing body of research indicates that IE is not only cost-
efficient, but also cost-effective, citing Skritic‟s (1991) assertion that “equity is the way to
excellence”.

The Salamanca Statement on Principles, Policy and Practice in Special Needs Education
encapsulates this trend in thinking whenit suggests that Inclusive Education can “provide an
effective education for the majority of children and improve the efficiency and “Special
educational needs” is defined as “a restriction in the capacity of the person to participate in and
benefit from education on account of an enduring physical, sensory, mental health or learning
disability or any other condition, which results in a person learning differently from a person
without that condition.”(Government of Ireland, 2004, section 1) Frederickson and Cline,
2002Ainscow, 1998 More than 300 participants representing 92 governments and 25
international organizations met in Salamanca, Spain, from 7 to 10 June 1994 to further the
objective of Education for All by considering the fundamental policy shifts required to promote
the approach of inclusive education,namely enabling schools to serve all children, particularly
those with special educational needs.(UNESCO, 2007, Education) ultimately the cost
effectiveness of the entire education system”.Ainscow (1998)suggests that that perhaps inclusion
is a means of transforming school systems. integration: Involves attendance at a„mainstream‟
setting, part-time or fulltime, with needs- based practical accommodations to facilitate
participation, but without change to the setting.

Inclusion in society

Most educational discussions on inclusion concentrate on curriculum, pastoral systems, attitudes

and teaching methods, but there is a wider notion of inclusion in society which goes beyond
these narrowly school-based considerations. The recent popularity of inclusion as an idea in
education probably rests at least in part on its consonance with this wider notion of inclusivity in
society: i.e. of a society in which each member has a stake. Commentators (Hutton, 1995; Kay,
1996; Plender, 1997a) have begun to discuss the meaning of this new inclusiveness. There is an
interesting notion of reciprocity in their discussion: a recognition of mutual obligations and
expectations between the community and institutions such as schools, in a way that these
institutions are reminded of their responsibilities and public duties. There is an injunction in the
inclusive, stakeholding ethic which takes account of those social costs and benefits not explicitly
priced in the market (Plender, 1997b). The social costs of segregation, many people with
disabilities would argue, are high, and yet neither schools nor those who administer the education
system have to bear them.
 Conclusions

The terminological shift from 'integration' to 'inclusion' in special education and the arbitrary use
of one term or another has ended up distorting the real meaning of both. This semantic confusion
suggests that when it was spoken of "integration", the socio-educative actions practiced actually
had this goal but fell into a mere inclusion of individuals in the already set-out structures
(ordinary schools in most cases). Meanwhile, the current "inclusive education" or "inclusive
pedagogy", even referring to inclusion what it really pursues and practices is the integration in
society. What cannot be forgotten is that the genuine special education is personalized and
therefore it will sometimes require the creation and arrangement of spaces and other facilities in
order to meet the specific needs of every student. We consider this semantic distinction to be
extremely important because each concept refers to different sociological logics (inclusion and
integration) that have diverse social educative implications which range from educational
policies to the selection of teaching methods and resources in the classroom.
 References

 Inclusion International. n.d. FAQs – Frequently Asked Questions: Questions You Have
About Inclusive Education But Didn‟t Know Whom To Ask. Accessed 4 November
2019: https://inclusion-international.org/catalyst-for-inclusive-education/faq/#_ftn2
 Bauer, N.J. (1994). The politics of inclusion: A dissenting perspective. Paper presented at the
Annual Conference of the New York State Association of Teacher Educators (Syracuse, NY, April
21, 1994).
 Chesley, G.M., & Calaluce, Jr., P.D. (1997). The deception of inclusion. Mental Retardation,
35(6), 488-490.
 Rallis, S.F., & Anderson, G. (1994). Building inclusive schools: Places where all children can learn.
Occasional paper series: 9(2). Andover, MA:The Regional Laboratory for Educational
Improvement of the
 Snyder, L., Garriott, P., & Aylor, M.W. (2001). Inclusion confusion: Putting the pieces together.
Teacher Education and Special Education, 24 (3),198-207.
 Abbott, C. n.d.Futurelab Series: Report 15: E-Inclusion: Learning Difficulties and Digital
Technologies[Online]

 Available from: Futurelab < http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources

 /publications_reports_articles/literature_reviews/Literature_Review314 > [Accessed 17
July 2007] Ainscow, M. 1998. Understanding the Development of Inclusive Schools.
London: Fulmer Press.Booth, T. and Lynch, J. 2003.Overcoming Exclusion through
Inclusive Approaches in Education: A Challenge and a Vision: Conceptual Paper. Paris:
UNESCO.

 Chadla, A. 2003. Perspectives in Special Needs Education in India: A Journey from

Isolation to Inclusion [Online]. Available from:
<http://www.un.org.in/Janshala/Janmar03/incluson.htm
 [Accessed 19 October 2007]Department of Education and Science 2007.
Inclusion of Students with Special Educational Needs: Post primary
Guidelines.Dublin: Government PublicationsFrederickson, N. and Cline, T. 2002.
 Special Educational Needs, Inclusion and Diversity: atextbook.Maidenhead. Open
University Press Government of Ireland 2004.Education for Persons with Special
Educational Needs Act,2004,Dublin: Stationery Office. Lewis, I. 2006.

 Inclusion in Action: Report of an inclusive education workshop [Online]. Available from:

EENET <http://www.eenet.org.uk/> [Accessed 11 October 2007] Nederlof, C. and Van
der Kroft, M. 2006. Disabilities and development: All Equal, All Different.Utrecht:
DCDD Peters, S. J. 2004. Inclusive Education: An EFA Strategy for All
Children.Washington: World Bank Stubbs, S. 2002.

 Inclusive Education: Where there are few resources [Online]. Available from: EENET
<http://www.eenet.org.uk/theory _practice/ie_few_resources.pdf > [Accessed 11 October
2007] UNESCO 1994. The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action [Online].
Available from:
UNESCO<http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.phpURL_ID=8412&URL_DO=DO_
TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html>[Accessed 11 October 2007] UNESCO 2007.

 InclusiveEducation[Online].Availablefrom:UNESCO<http://portal.unesco.org/education/
en/ev.php-URL_ID=11891&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.htm
l>[Acessed 20 October 2007] National Council for Special Education 2006.
Implementation Report: Plan for the Phased Implementation of the EPSEN Act 2004.
Dublin: NCSE

 Inclusion International. n.d. FAQs – Frequently Asked Questions: Questions You Have
About Inclusive Education But Didn’t Know Whom To Ask. Accessed 4 November 2019:
https://inclusion-international.org/catalyst-forinclusive-education/faq/#_ftn2

 Inclusive schools for an inclusive society By Gary Thomas British Journal of Special
Education
 British Journal of Special Education Volume 24, No. 3 (September 1997)