Abstract
In the United States, there is presently a strong lobby for the provision of early, intensive intervention based on the tenets of applied behaviour analysis (ABA) for young children who have been labelled with autism. This push is strongly supported and largely led by parents advocating on behalf of their own children together with professionals in the discipline of behavioural psychology. While many advocates conceptualise and represent ABA as a progressive alternative to segregated special education, its relationship to the goals of inclusive education and the rights of all children to have equal access to public education is problematic at best. Many ABA programs conceptualise "inclusion" in public schools as a "best outcome" of segregated specialized instruction (generally averaging 2 years' duration). I would argue that "inclusion" conceptualised as an achieved outcome of specialised, segregated intervention is fundamentally inconsistent with the international goal of "education for all," as it continues to legitimate the systematic exclusion of some children from access to inclusive public education. This paper will examine the implications of inclusion as "outcome," drawing upon research articles, interview data, and state guidelines for special education practice. It will also explore ways that specialised teaching techniques may contribute to successfully educating all children in inclusive classrooms.
 |
 |