Creating a Responsive Society for Effective Implementation of Inclusive Education: The Case for the Adoption of the Socioecological Model

Abstract

Inclusive education increases human capital such as knowledge, skills, social interactions, and health, which enhance individuals’ chances for higher earnings, social mobility, and sustainable growth within communities and countries. For inclusive education to be successful, a written plan or an individualized education plan has been advocated for. The concept of this plan defines special education programs, accommodations, and services that a school board will provide for students or the practice of helping students meet their educational goals through educational programs that modify certain course requirements to be either above or below age-appropriate, grade-level expectations, and the provision of alternative course or class expectations that help students acquire knowledge and skills that are not part of the curriculum.  Therefore, using this plan, the proponents of inclusive education advocate for the inclusion of individuals living with physical and mental impairments, such as sensory or mobility limitations, intellectual disabilities, language disorders, and behavior disorders, to promote education access to marginalized groups in society. On the other hand, the opponents of inclusion education argue that the concept of a written plan, or an individualized education plan, seems ineffective and paradoxical to the general government’s policy on an inclusive classroom. A review of existing literature on inclusive education shows that the inconsistencies in both the concept and implementation of inclusive education are the outcomes of the dichotomy between an unresponsive society, which encourages a stagnant or ill-prepared system, and a rapidly evolving political correctness environment. As a way forward, we recommend the adoption of a social-ecological model for creating a responsive society for the effective development and implementation of inclusive education policies based on the findings of our consolidated literature review.   

Received: 19 May 2024 / Accepted: 27 June 2024 / Published: 8 July 2024