The recent resurgence in public debate over proposals to return students with disabilities to separate educational pathways has revived an issue that scientific research, international legislation and educational scholarship had already addressed. This is not to deny the daily challenges that schools, families and support services face in creating genuinely inclusive educational environments, nor to underestimate the complexity of every educational process. Rather, it is to recognise that the real question is no longer whether inclusion is the most appropriate educational approach, but how to make it fully effective in practice.

From the Deficit Model to the Social-Ecological Model

Over the past four decades, international research has progressively moved away from an approach centred on individual deficit towards a social-ecological model. Within this framework, disability is no longer understood as an intrinsic characteristic of the individual but as the outcome of the interaction between personal characteristics, environmental demands and the quality of the supports available (Schalock et al., 2010; Shogren, 2013). Consequently, the central question is no longer, "What is lacking in the individual?" but rather, "Which environmental, cultural and relational conditions enable or hinder full participation?" This theoretical shift transfers attention from the individual to the community and redefines the educational objective: not to normalise individuals so that they conform to existing contexts, but to transform those contexts through Universal Design and the quality of interpersonal relationships. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD, 2006) reinforced this position by establishing that autonomy, participation and self-determination are fundamental human rights. Inclusive education is therefore not merely one organisational option among many; it is the practical implementation of the right to belong to one's own community.

Inclusion as a Common Good and a Driver of Human Development

Scientific evidence demonstrates that inclusion constitutes, in every respect, a common good capable of generating widespread social value. An inclusive school does not merely enhance the educational experience of students with disabilities; it improves the relational quality of the entire classroom community, fosters the development of cooperative competences and promotes a culture in which diversity is recognised as an ordinary dimension of the human condition. This perspective closely aligns with Italian research, particularly the work of Salvatore Soresi and Laura Nota within the fields of Life Design and positive psychology (Nota & Soresi, 2015; Soresi & Nota, 2020). Their studies demonstrate that individual well-being and people's capacity to design and pursue their future are intrinsically linked to the inclusive quality of the contexts in which they live. This approach also resonates strongly with the Capability Approach developed by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum (2011), according to which the formal recognition of rights alone is insufficient. What is equally necessary is the existence of concrete structural conditions—capabilities—that enable people to act effectively in the world. Within this perspective, support itself acquires a different meaning. It is no longer conceived merely as a compensatory mechanism designed to offset an individual's limitations, but rather as a systemic resource that enhances the quality of the environment for everyone involved—including families, teachers, educators and classmates.

Self-Determination and Causal Agency Theory

Moving beyond a segregated approach paves the way for a second, equally significant transformation concerning the concept of self-determination. Traditionally interpreted as synonymous with independence or individual self-sufficiency, contemporary research now proposes a relational understanding of this construct. In Self-Determination and Causal Agency Theory, Karrie A. Shogren and Sheida K. Raley (2022), building upon the theoretical work of Michael L. Wehmeyer, define self-determination as the process through which individuals become causal agents in their own lives, intentionally directing their actions within the social networks to which they belong. Self-determination, therefore, does not develop through isolation or by removing individuals from challenging situations. Rather, it flourishes as opportunities for choice, social recognition and accessible environments increase. The principal barriers to self-determination are not biological limitations but cultural obstacles, low expectations, paternalistic practices and ableist attitudes that restrict participation. When policymakers or public opinion suggest that separating students is the solution to educational challenges, they commit a fundamental epistemological error: locating the problem within the individual rather than within the organisation of educational contexts.

From Opinions to Evidence: Empirical Research

Whereas only a few years ago self-determination risked remaining little more than a pedagogical ideal, it is now recognised as a scientifically measurable construct. Among the most robust standardised instruments developed internationally is the Self-Determination Inventory (SDI), created by Shogren and colleagues (2020). The cross-cultural validation of this instrument, as demonstrated by the recent study conducted in Portugal by Moreira and colleagues (2025), with the contribution of Mayumi Hagiwara, confirms that self-determination maintains a coherent and robust unidimensional structure both among individuals with and without intellectual and developmental disabilities. The findings further demonstrate that developmental trajectories depend primarily upon the opportunities provided by the surrounding environment. The Italian version of the SDI is currently undergoing validation as part of an international scientific collaboration involving the University of Kansas and San Francisco State University (Santilli et al., in press). The availability of validated measures will enable schools, support services and policymakers to evaluate the effectiveness of educational environments in promoting self-determination empirically, thereby shifting scientific debate definitively from the realm of opinion to that of evidence.

A Matter of Democracy and Citizenship

Ultimately, segregation does not merely produce organisational or educational disadvantages; it fundamentally alters the moral architecture of society. Arguing that some students are "better off" in separate educational settings establishes the dangerous cultural precedent that difference is a problem to be excluded rather than a reality with which society should learn to coexist. The history of exclusion demonstrates that such dynamics rarely remain confined to a single social group. Once the separation of individuals is legitimised on the basis of their perceived "complexity" or "vulnerability", the very concept of citizenship is redefined and progressively narrowed for the benefit of the wider community. The debate surrounding inclusion cannot therefore be reduced to a disagreement over the effectiveness of educational techniques. Rather, it directly challenges the model of democracy we aspire to build. Contemporary research offers a clear direction: self-determination is not the outcome of individual independence but of the quality of social relationships, while inclusion is not a favour granted to a minority but a measure of the democratic maturity of society as a whole.

References

Moreira, C., Simões, C., Oliveira, A., Pereira, A., Rosário, P., Hagiwara, M., Shogren, K. A., & Santos, S. (2025). The Factor Structure of the Self-Determination Inventory Portuguese Translation for Persons With and Without Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: A Confirmatory Analysis. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 69(8), 675–681.

Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. Harvard University Press.

Santilli, S., et al. (in press). Italian Translation and Validation of the Self-Determination Inventory.

Schalock, R. L., Borthwick-Duffy, S. A., Bradley, V. J., et al. (2010). Intellectual Disability: Definition, Classification, and Systems of Supports (11th ed.). AAIDD.

Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press.

Shogren, K. A. (2013). A social-ecological analysis of self-determination literature. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 51(6), 496–511.

Shogren, K. A., Nota, L., Soresi, S., Wehmeyer, M. L., Ginevra, M. C., & Little, T. D. (2013). A Cross-cultural Comparison of the Self-Determination Construct in Italian and American Adolescents. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2013.808159

Shogren, K. A., Little, T. D., Grandfield, E., et al. (2020). The Self-Determination Inventory–Student Report: Confirming the Factor Structure of a New Measure. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 45(2), 110–120.

Shogren, K. A., & Raley, S. K. (Eds.). (2022). Self-Determination and Causal Agency Theory. Springer.

Soresi, S., & Nota, L. (2020).

Nota, L., & Soresi, S. (2015).