A debate rages on in the field of special education. This debate centers around the full inclusion movement and how one defines the least restrictive environment (LRE). Advocates of full inclusion (e.g., McGregor, 1993, 1994; Wang, Reynolds, & Walberg,1994/1995) note that all children with disabilities need to receive all of their educational programming in the regular classroom along with their chronological-age peers without disabilities. These educators equate the LRE with the regular education classroom. In this setting, students are viewed as having diverse abilities versus disabilities. According to McGregor (1994), "inclusive schools are strong schools, sharing a belief in the value of all students and creating a culture that prepares its students for life as responsible citizens in a diverse society" (p.2). On the other hand, Fuchs and Fuchs (1994, 1994/1995) and Shanker (1994/1995) indicate that sometimes segregated education is better for children with disabilities.

We believe that applied behavior analysts within the field of special education should align themselves with the philosophy of Fuchs and Fuchs (1944, 1994/1995). We recognize that full inclusion is a long-term goal for some children with disabilities. We take each child's unique needs and determine through data-based analysis the most appropriate LRE for the child. This may or may not be the regular education classroom based on the level of support and services offered. Interestingly, McCarthy (1994) notes that inclusion is "not mentioned in the federal law; it is a state-of-the art term that refers to placing children with disabilities in integrated sites" (p. 1). We must also look at the research on full inclusion. According to Madden and Slavin (1983), based on an exhaustive study of the efficacy of special education, only those students with disabilities closest to the achievement level of the regular classroom benefit (academically and socially) from being assigned to the regular classroom, where possible.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1994). Inclusive schools movement and the radicalization of special education reform. Exceptional Children, 60, 294-309.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1994/1995, December/January). Sometimes separate is better. Educational Leadership, 22-26.

Madden, N., & Slavin, R. (1983). Mainstreaming students with mild handicaps: Academic and social outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 53, 519-569.

McCarthy, M. M. (1994, November). Inclusion and the law: Recent judicial developments. Research Bulletin: Phi Delta Kappa, 1-4.

McGregor, G. (1993, Fall). Inclusion: A powerful pedagogy. Front Line, 2(1), 8-10.

McGegor,G. (1994,Feb).Inclusion: Meeting the needs of all students in regular education classrooms. Pennsylvania Reporter, 25 (2), 1-2.

Shanker, A. (1994/95, Dec./Jan.). Full inclusion is neither free nor appropriate. Educational Leadership, 18-21.

Wang, M.C., Reynolds, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (1994/95, Dec./Jan.). Serving students at the margins. Educational Leadership, 12-17.