It is argued that educational treatments of children with disabilities
should be empirically validated. From this perspective the current pr
ess for full inclusion is examined against empirical evidence bearing
on the major assertions of advocates for full inclusion. Students with
emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) are among the most difficult
to include, and the unique problems presented by such children often
are ignored by advocates for full inclusion. Arguments for full inclus
ion, particularly as they apply to children with emotional and behavio
ral disorders suffer from: (a) the failure to specify what constitutes
full inclusion, (b) the weakness of relying on anecdotal reports and
single case studies to validate the utility of full inclusion of all c
hildren with disabilities, and (c) the fact that the evidence that doe
s exist fails to include children with emotional and behavioral disord
ers. Finally, evidence is summarized that contradicts the position tha
t ''more restrictive'' placements are never beneficial and that regula
r class placement is always beneficial to all children with disabiliti
es.