Reflecting on Special Education Instruction: It's Not About Where, It's About How

For decades, schools have debated a central question: Where should students with disabilities be taught?

Some advocate for full inclusion in general education classrooms, while others support a continuum of services that includes more specialized settings. However, after Fuchs, Gilmour and Wanzek reviewed over 50 years of research, one thing is clear: The question we’ve been asking may be the wrong one. 

The biggest factor in educating students with learning differences isn’t where students are taught but how they are taught. 

Check out their meta-analysis here, or read on for a summary of what they found. 

The Problem with Focusing on Placement in Special Education Instruction

Much of this debate stems from the idea of the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). While often interpreted as “general education whenever possible,” the law actually calls for something more balanced: students should learn alongside peers when appropriate—but not at the expense of meaningful progress. That distinction matters.

Research comparing general education and specialized settings has been surprisingly inconclusive. Many studies fail to account for key differences between students, such as prior achievement or level of need. When those factors are considered, the supposed benefits of one placement over another often disappear.

In short, we don’t have strong evidence that where students learn drives academic success.

What the Research Shows

While research on placement for students receiving special education instruction is murky, research on instruction is not.

High-quality studies consistently show that students with disabilities make the greatest gains when they receive intensive, explicit, and systematic instruction. 

This type of instruction is often delivered in small groups or one-on-one and focuses directly on skill gaps. When done well, it can significantly accelerate learning, especially in reading. That’s the clearest takeaway: Instruction, not location, is what moves students.

What This Means for Schools

This revelation has practical implications. Too often, placement decisions come first, and instruction is adjusted afterward. The research suggests we should reverse that.

Start with what the student needs instructionally, then determine the setting that can deliver it effectively.

For some students, that will be the general education classroom with strong supports. For others, it may require additional time in smaller, more intensive settings. That’s not a failure of inclusion, it’s a commitment to meeting student needs. Because inclusion without effective instruction isn’t equity.

The Bottom Line

After decades of debate, the message is simple: Placement alone doesn’t drive achievement—instruction does.

When schools focus on delivering the right instruction at the right intensity, they move beyond the “where” debate and toward what actually matters—helping every student make meaningful progress.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00222194251315196