Presenters: Blair Juncaj, Allison Knapp, Kristen Smith,

1
Inclusion of Special Education Students in the
General Education Setting

• Presenters Blair Juncaj, Allison Knapp, Kristen
  Smith,
• 4/13/09

2
Introduction

• The topic of inclusion versus traditional service
  delivery models for students with a disability
  has been a popular topic in recent years.
• It has been made mandatory to meet the needs of
  these children teachers, parents, and students
  are debating as to which practices benefit
  special needs students.

3
History

• Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act originally
  defined a handicapped person and prohibits
  discrimination against students with disabilities
  in any federally funded program, including public
  schools.
• It requires a free appropriate public education
  (FAPE) or an education that is comparable to the
  education provided to non-handicapped students.

4
IDEA

• In 1990, EAHCA renamed to its more popular and
  present name IDEA or the Individuals with
  Disabilities Act.
• It requires states to provide a free and
  appropriate education for children with
  disabilities (ages 5-8).
• Further it requires an IEP or an individualized
  education program for each special needs child in
  order to provide the child with a FAPE and that
  the student is placed in the least restrictive
  environment possible.

5
No Child Left Behind Act

• The most recent piece of legislation from the
  Congress addressing students with special needs
  is No Child Left Behind (NCLB), which requires
  all students to be proficient in Math and Reading
  by the year 2014. This includes those students
  with special needs.
• Recently, IDEA 2004 and No Child Left Behind
  legislation has allowed for enhancement of
  programs at the state level, response to
  intervention, and increased expectations for
  academic progress to be made (Esteves Rao,
  2008).

6
Service Delivery Models

• Vaughn, Bos, and Schumm (2006) find full
  inclusion to be when a special needs student
  participates completely in a general education
  classroom where special education services are
  administered.
• In the inclusion model, special and general
  education students are educated in the same
  classrooms for all courses, regardless of how
  severe the disability may be.
• Special education teachers come into the general
  education classrooms to assist the special
  education students with their academic needs.

7
Service Delivery Models

• Mainstreaming/partial inclusion is when a student
  spends majority of their time in the regular
  education based on the needs and skills of each
  child.
• The tradition or pull out model of special
  education service delivery involves removing
  students from their regular classroom settings to
  work on areas of deficit.
• This can mean the special education student
  receives assistance in a resource room or
  self-contained classroom setting.

8
What does the literature say?

• The limited amount of current research has
  demonstrated mixed results about which method of
  service delivery is more effective for students.
• One study by Fore, Hagan-Burke, Burke, Boon, and
  Smith (2008) found that there were no significant
  differences between SLD students in the inclusion
  model and traditional model.
• The common thought is that the traditional model
  fails to provide students an education in the
  least restrictive environment.

9
What does the literature say?

• Zigmond et al. (1995) found that students who
  were placed in an inclusive setting were not
  achieving at an acceptable rate, despite the push
  for students to be part of the inclusion model.
• The enlightening argument is that "there is now
  substantial evidence that most, if not all,
  children with disabilities, including children
  with very severe disabilities, can be educated
  appropriately without isolation from peers who do
  not have disabilities" (Ringer Kerr, 1988, p.
  6).

10
Pros of Inclusion

• The NASP position paper on inclusive programs
  also presents several benefits of this service
  delivery model peer modeling, development of
  friendships, generalization of academic and
  social skills, and increasing diversity, to name
  a few.
• According to Lewis (1994), students with
  disabilities in inclusive environments "improve
  in social interaction, language development,
  appropriate behavior, and self-esteem" (p. 72).

11
Cons of Inclusion

• Others feel that the average teacher is not
  qualified or trained to assist students with
  disabilities that teachers are not likely to
  make adaptations for these students, and that
  social exclusion may occur because they will be
  targeted and identified by non-disabled children.
  
• There are also concerns that the academic
  performance of all students will decline because
  the teacher may spend too much time attending to
  struggling students, taking away from
  instructional time (Klingner, 1998).

12
Pros of Pull Out/Traditional Model

• The disabled children are getting appropriate,
  specialized attention and care, and the regular
  students' education is not disrupted constantly.
• Teachers will not need additional training or
  resources to teach students with the extreme
  variation of abilities presented by severely
  disabled to mildly disabled students.
• Removing students from their regular classroom
  settings to work on areas of deficit can mean the
  special education student receives assistance in
  a resource room or self-contained classroom
  setting.

13
Cons of Pull Out/Traditional Model

• There is very limited peer modeling, development
  of friendships, generalization of academic and
  social skills, and increasing diversity, to name
  a few.
• Students with disabilities in pull out
  environments do not develop in social
  interaction, language development, appropriate
  behavior, and self-esteem as well as students in
  the inclusion model.

14
Student Perceptions

• Mixed results overall.
• Some research has found that students prefer the
  inclusion model for struggling students.
• A few students did mention the traditional
  placement for students with disabilities, but
  overall felt this was unnecessary and
  inappropriate (Bunch).
• Pugach and Wesson (1995) found that SLD students
  did not like the formal pull out model of service
  delivery, but did approve of being taken out of
  the classroom on occasion to receive extra
  assistance.

15
Parent Perceptions

• In terms of parent preferences, Fisher, Pumpian,
  and Sax (1998) found that parents overall
  preferred the inclusion model for their students
  with disabilities.
• Elkins, van Kraayenoord, and Jobling (2003) found
  that Australian parents of students with
  disabilities preferred inclusion and stated
  limited negative opinions of inclusion.
• Overall, parents of disabled and non-disabled
  children liked and preferred the inclusion
  service delivery model.

16
Teacher Perceptions

• Fuchs (2008) found that teachers feel a lack of
  understanding of implementation and support to
  use the inclusion model and also did not feel
  they could effectively teach mainstreamed
  students in the general education setting.
• Overall, it seems that teachers like the theory
  behind inclusion, but feel that they do not have
  sufficient skills, knowledge, or training in
  order to teach the vast range of students that
  would be in their classes under the inclusion
  model.

17
What do you think is the best model?

• Based on the literature, legislative trends, and
  preferences of students, parents, and teachers,
  what do you think is the best model?
• Full inclusion?
• Partial inclusion?
• Traditional model?
• One? A combination of models?

18
References

• Esteves, K.J. Rao, S. (2008). The evolution of
  special education Retracing legal milestones in
  American history. Web Exclusive Principal.
  National Association of Elementary Principals.
  http//www.naesp.org/resources/1/Principal/2008/N-
  Oweb2.pdf
• Vaughn, S., Bos, C., Schumm, J. (2006).
  Teaching Students Who Are Exceptional, Diverse,
  and at Risk in the General Education Classroom.
  Boston Allyn Bacon.
• Fore III, C., Hagan-Burke, S., Burke, M. D.,
  Boon, R.T., Smith, S. (2008). Academic
  achievement and class placement in high school
  Do students with learning disabilities achieve
  more in one class placement than another?
  Electronic version Education and Treatment of
  Children, 31 (1), 55-72.
• Ringer, L., Kerr, S. (1988, winter).
  Integration-the legal imperative. Minnesota UAP
  Impact, 1(2), 2. Minneapolis University of
  Minnesota, Affiliated Program on Developmental
  Disabilities. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
  No. ED 329 081)
• Zigmond, N., Jenkins, J., Fuchs, L., Deno, S.,
  Fuchs, D., Baker, J.N., Jenkins, L, Couthino,
  M. (1995). Special education in restructured
  schools Findings from three multi-year studies.
  Phi Delta
• Fuchs, W. (2008). General education teachers
  beliefs and attitudes about current mainstreaming
  practices. Dissertation Abstracts International
  Section A Humanitites and Social Sciences, 69
  (6-A), 2116.
• Pugach, M Wesson, C. (1995). Teachers and
  students views of team teaching of general
  education and learning-disabled students in two
  fifth-grade classes. Electronic version The
  Elementary School Journal, 95 (3), 279-295.
• Elkins, J., van Kraayenoord, C., Jobling, A.
  (2003). Parents attitudes to inclusion of their
  children with special needs. Journal of Research
  in Special Education Needs, 3(2), 122-129.