What is the Purpose of Inclusion: An Ontological Perspective

Reindal (2010) investigated the capability approach invented by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum, and what it can contribute to a different theoretical framework toward special education. The basic question asked by the study was, ‘what is the purpose of inclusion?’. After a literature review, Reindal states that the rationales for inclusion can be divide into three broad categories; ontological, epistemological, and the realm of ethical and socio-political.

The ontological argument, an argument that states if something exists or is believed to exist it can be grouped into a hierarchy, for special education has many tiers. Classification of special education students differ from state to state and from district to district. A geographical group would have to have the same definition and classification for each disability and degrees within the spectrum for that disability. Within this classification a student would be placed in the hierarchy according to physical, emotional, and cognitive capabilities.

Once the student has been ontologically placed, the question is asked, what is the purpose of inclusion for this student? Is it to follow a perceived idea that all students benefit from inclusion or does it fit a framework of thought that this level of the hierarchy is included for specific reasons determined by the peers within that group? This could be done, but without epistemological, ethical, and socio-political considerations a core educational value could be neglected.

With just the ontological approach the identity of the student could overshadow the specific needs of the individual. The student is classified, but even within a narrow classification, the idea of the individual is lost. Individualized education for the special education student has now become a grouped education with specific modifications and accommodations that are assigned for that group that may or may not benefit the individual child.

Reindal (2010) quotes Terzi (2005) by stating that the capability approach goes beyond the problem of difference. Most theories of disability state that that difference is a specific variable that can change the disability. If the difference is higher or lower at a specific occasion, then the modification or accommodation may not fit as an encompassing tool to educate that specific child. As new experiences are added to the child’s life, the ability to meet those experiences are only measured by the success the student has to his or her non-disabled peers. The ontological approach alone could not be a deciding factor without negative and non-inclusive outcomes.

Reindal, S. (2010). What is the purpose? Reflections on inclusion and special education from a capability perspective. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25(1), 1-12. doi:10.1080/08856250903450806

Terzi, L. (2005). A capability perspective on impairment, disability and special needs.Towards social justice in education. Theory and Research in Education 3, no. 2: 197–223.