Law Offices of Anne I. Eason, LLC

Home

Position Statement

Curriculum Modifications  and Adaptations

Inclusion    

Info on Special Education

Info on the IDEA Improvement Act of 2004

Outcomes Research that Support Inclusion

Message from Anne Eason

Links

logo designed by Maija Riekstiņa

Outcomes Research That Support Inclusion

Summary of Selected Studies

1. Excerpts from:  FLETCHER-CAMBPELL, F. (Ed) (2000). Literacy and Special Educational Needs: a Review of the Literature (DfEE Research Report 227). London.. Available online at http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/programmeofresearch/projectinformation.cfm?projectid=12834&resultspage=1.

All the published studies that compare outcomes for mainstream and special schools report higher academic achievements for the children with Down syndrome who are included in the mainstream schools even when mental age is controlled for (Casey et al., 1988; Sloper et al., 1990; Cunningham et al., 1998; Buckley et al., (see reference at end of this excerpt).

Two studies published in the UK in the 1980’s indicate reading progress in the first years at school.  Casey et al., (1988) followed the progress of 36 children with Down syndrome, chronological age 3:8 to 10 years, (mental age 2:3 to 6:8 years), 18 were in mainstream placements and 18 in schools for children with moderate learning difficulties.  The children did not differ in cognitive development at the start of their schooling.  After two years, 89% of the girls and 67% of the boys in the mainstream classrooms could achieve above baseline scores on both the accuracy and the comprehension components of the Neale Analysis of Reading Ability.  The children in the special schools were lagging behind with 89% of the girls and 33% of the boys scoring on accuracy and only 44% of the girls and 33% of the boys scoring on comprehension.  As the children were equally able at the start of the study, it is likely that the difference in reading progress two years later is due to differences in the teaching of reading in the two school types.

In one longitudinal study, the Portsmouth research team are following the progress of 24 children with Down syndrome (10 girls and 14 boys, CA 4:11 to 12:7, mean 8:2) and comparing their progress with a group of their mainstream classmates who are matched with them on reading age (and are therefore slow readers for age), as well as a group of classmates who are average readers for their age (Byrne, 1997; Byrne et al., 1995, 1996).  The study is charting the reading, writing and spelling progress of the children, looking at the cognitive strategies they are using to read and the links between reading, language and memory skills.  These children are fully included in the classroom and receive literacy teaching similar to that of their peers, with the support of a learning support assistant.

At the start of the study, all the children with Down syndrome were learning to read and their reading ages ranged from 5:0 to 8:5 for word reading, 6 to 7 years for comprehension and 6:0 to 7:2 for spelling.  Vocabulary ages ranged from 3:7 to 5:4, and grammar ages from 4:0 to 5:0 years.  The children with Down syndrome had reading ages higher than their language comprehension ages would predict.

Buckley, S. J., Bird, G., Sacks, B. I., & Archer, T. (2000). The development of teenagers with Down syndrome in 1987 and 1999:  Implications for families and schools. Down Syndrome News and Update, 2(2), 3.

2.  http://www.beachcenter.org/Books%5CFullPublications%5CPDF%5CPresidentReport.pdf.  This is a link to the text of testimony that Dr. Wayne Sailor presented to the Presidents Commission on Excellence in Special Education. It contains a recent (2002) and comprehensive literature review on inclusion. All of the citations are included at the end of the testimony. It starts with a nice historical framework for the present status of inclusive education in our country.

3. Outcomes for Students with Learning Disabilities in Inclusive and Pullout Programs.
Rea, Patricia J.; McLaughlin, Virginia L.; Walther-Thomas, Chriss; 
Exceptional Children, v68 n2 p203-22 Win 2002
A study investigated the relationship between placement in inclusive (n=36) and pullout (n=22) special education programs and academic and behavior outcomes for students with disabilities. Eighth-graders in inclusive classrooms earned higher grades, achieved higher or comparable standardized test scores, committed no more behavioral infractions, and attended more days of school. (Contains references.)

4. Inclusion and Discipline Referrals.Krank, H. Mark; Moon, Charles E.; Render, Gary F.; 
Rural Educator. v24 n1 p13-17 Fall 2002
Discipline referrals for special needs students and other students in a rural K-8 school were examined before and after the school shifted to inclusive-school policies and practices. In the year after the shift, discipline referrals declined sharply for special needs students and slightly for other students, reflecting positive social outcomes of the changed environment. (Contains 25 references.) (SV

5. Academic Effects of Providing Peer Support in General Education Classrooms on Students without Disabilities.Cushing, Lisa Sharon; Kennedy, Craig H. .
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, v30 n1 p139-51 Spr 1997
A study of three children (ages 11-13) without disabilities who served as peer supports for students with disabilities in general education classrooms found that serving as a peer support had positive academic effects on the students without disabilities. Follow-up probes demonstrated that the positive benefits regarding academic engagement endured over time.

6. An Exploratory Study of Mainstreamed Seventh Graders' Perceptions of an Inclusive Approach to Instruction.Summey, Heidi K.; Strahan, David B.
Remedial and Special Education, v18 n1 p36-45 Jan-Feb 1997
Eleven seventh-grade students with mild disabilities in a general language arts classroom participated in a study that examined the effects of an instructional approach based on Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences. Results found the students were more engaged in classroom activities and that eight of the students demonstrated more consistent reading strategies.

7. A Comparison of Developmental Gains for Preschool Children with Disabilities in Inclusive and Self-Contained Classrooms.
Holahan, Annette; Costenbader, Virginia
Topics in Early Childhood Special Education; v20 n4 p224-35 Win 2000
Two studies examined developmental outcomes associated with services in inclusive and self-contained preschool classrooms. Children functioning at relatively higher levels of social and emotional functioning performed better in inclusive settings than in specialized settings and children in full-day classrooms achieved higher rates of progress than half-day peers.

8. The Impact of Typical Peers on the Perceived Happiness of Students with Profound Multiple Disabilities. Logan, Kent R.; Jacobs, Heidi A.; Gast, David L.; Murray, Amy Streu; Daino, Kim; Skala, Chuck.Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, v23 n4 p309- 18 Win 1998
A study evaluated the effect of the type of peer group on behavior associated with the happiness of five elementary students with profound multiple disabilities. Results indicated higher levels of happiness behaviors (smiles, eyes open) with typical peers than with peers with disabilities across all five students.

9. Literacy:

"Education contributes to an individual's journey toward self reliance and independence. Schools and instruction must be designed and organized to meet the varying needs of individual learners....Alaska is striving to improve educational outcomes for all students."
(Dr. Shirley Hollaway, Commissioner of Education for Alaska, in a speech given to the Special Education Directors' Conference, Anchorage, AK, September 1996)

 "The entire context of American education is changing. We need teachers skilled in using computers as a powerful teaching tool, and many more teachers well-versed in teaching English as a second language. Our teachers need to teach to a higher level of achievement, and be prepared to teach all of America's children-the gifted and talented, our many new immigrants, the college-bound achiever, and the disabled child who is learning so much more because he or she is now included."
Secretary Richard Riley, United States Department of Education, in a speech on the State of American Education, February, 1997)

We hear and read a lot about school improvement, school reform and restructuring. However, educators still have many questions about how to provide a quality education for students with disabilities in school. This document shares current research on achievement and successful practices, related to educating students with disabilities in inclusive general education classrooms.

What is Inclusion?

For the purpose of this document, inclusion is defined as providing specially designed instruction and supports for students with special needs in the context of regular education settings. It means that all students in a school's attendance area are full members of that school community and each student participates equitably in the opportunities and responsibilities of the general education environment. Those involved in inclusion efforts understand that classrooms are becoming more and more diverse and that the teacher's job is "to arrange instruction that benefits all students-even though the various students may derive different benefits" (Rogers, 1993, p. 4). Past assumptions about special education and general education as separate systems are giving way to a challenge to work together (Moore, 1996).

After looking extensively at the research on placement of students with disabilities, Hocutt (1996) concludes that instruction, not setting, is the key to achievement of success as measured by student outcomes. Further, she reports that case-by-case approaches are the best way to make decisions about student instruction and placement. Intensive and reasonably individualized instruction, close cooperation between general and special education teachers, and careful, frequent monitoring of student progress are very important (p. 97).

Special education is not a place. It is specialized instruction and supplementary aids and services provided to students with disabilities who need specialized instruction. Some students (labeled as receiving special education or not) may need, or want, to spend some of their time learning in a quieter place with fewer people or with additional help from others. The vignettes that are placed throughout this booklet illustrate how special education services are being delivered in more inclusive ways in actual schools and classrooms in Alaska and Oregon. "Inclusion" looks different in each case. The vignettes demonstrate some of the salient features of good inclusion. At the conclusion of the document resources are available that may help you as you work toward quality special education in Alaska.

Mainstreaming, Integration or Inclusion?

Inclusion is different from integration or mainstreaming. Mainstreaming brought students with special education needs into general classrooms only when they didn't need specially designed instruction when they could keep up with the "mainstream." Integration presumes that "segregation" exists and students are with their peers without disabilities part-time. In reality, students who were integrated part-time were not truly a part of the class and were often involved in activities very different from the other students in the class. Inclusion, a philosophy of acceptance, belonging and community, also means that general education classes are structured to meet the needs of all the students in the class. This is accomplished through educational strategies designed for a diverse student population and collaboration between educators so that specially designed instruction and supplementary aids and services are provided to all students as needed for effective learning.

Several recent studies have found that inclusion is more effective than either integration or mainstreaming. Ferguson's (1992) project to achieve both social and learning outcomes for students in general education classrooms resulted in the finding that "integration doesn't work, but inclusion does." Schnorr's (1990) seven month investigation of the way in which a classroom of first graders viewed and interacted with a student with moderate disabilities who was mainstreamed only on a part-time basis revealed that the part-time student was considered an "outsider" by the other students in the class. A study of 16 secondary students placed in nine Oregon high schools (Hilton & Liberty, 1992) demonstrates that placing students with severe disabilities in integrated settings does not ensure that either integration or inclusion will take place. In this case, there was little interaction between students with and without disabilities, teachers did not foster integration when opportunities presented themselves, schedules often minimized integration opportunities and students' records indicated they were not making progress toward independent adult functioning. These studies lend support to the contention that, for successful inclusion to occur, the general education classroom needs to be a place where a range of student abilities is supported and accepted.

Legal Requirements

The federal law that assures students with disabilities have access to school and a free appropriate public education has recently been reauthorized. The new Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) contains requirements that will strengthen progress toward inclusionary practices. Like the old law, the new IDEA does not use the term inclusion, but rather requires school districts to place students in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). Judy Heumann, Assistant Secretary of the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, describes how the general education classroom should be the first option considered: "In implementing IDEA's LRE provisions, the regular classroom in the school the student would attend if not disabled is the first placement option considered for each disabled student before a more restrictive placement is considered. If the IEP of a student with a disability can be implemented satisfactorily with the provision of supplementary aids and services in the regular classroom...that placement is the LRE placement for that student" (1995). The Alaska Department of Education provides encouragement and support to all Alaskan schools to meet this federal perspective on LRE.

The new IDEA calls for involving students with disabilities in general education curricula, assessment activities and classrooms, with supplementary aids and services and specially designed instruction, as appropriate. Not only must the IEP contain a statement of how the child's disability will affect participation in the general curriculum, but it must explain why any student will not be participating in the general education classroom, as well as extracurricular and non-academic activities. The Committee Report that accompanied the new law to Congress explained the intent behind the changes: "The new emphasis on participation in the general education curriculum...is intended to produce attention to the accommodations and adjustments necessary for disabled children to access the general education curriculum and the special services which may be necessary for appropriate participation in particular areas of the curriculum..." (U.S. Senate, 1997, p. 17).

Court decisions have played a role in defining inclusion in the past six or seven years. Different circuit courts have applied slightly different tests for determining whether a school district has complied with the LRE provision of the law. The Ninth Circuit Court, which has jurisdiction over Alaska, ruled that a school district must show that it has made a good faith effort to enable a student to participate in the general education setting. The factors to consider are: "1) the educational benefits of the regular classroom with supplementary aids and services balanced with the educational benefits of the special education classroom; 2) the non-academic benefits of integration with students who are not disabled; 3) the effect of the student's presence on the educational environment and on other children in the classroom; and 4) the cost of mainstreaming the student" (Yell & Shriner, 1996, p. 103). In the case that generated this test, Rachel H., the burden of proof was on the district to show that the disadvantages of inclusion would outweigh the advantages. The court ruled that the district had not demonstrated that the academic benefits of the special education class were better or even equal to those of the general education class. Rachel was making good progress in the general education class, and was not disruptive. Finally, though the district tried to show that the inclusive placement was too expensive, the court ruled that the evidence was not persuasive and determined that the general education classroom was the appropriate full-time placement for Rachel. This case confirmed IDEA's strong presumption in favor of a general class placement.

Figure 1

School Reform

  School reform is about identifying, understanding, and using practices in schools that have a sound basis in research. It is about making a difference for students and helping them achieve success in school. A common consensus is beginning to take shape across experts and practitioners from a variety of educational disciplines about what really constitutes "best practice." Figure 1 (see pg. 4) lists common recommendations that have been gleaned from national curriculum reports (Zemelman, Daniels, & Hyde, 1993). The reason for listing these recommendations is to support the notion that much of what is being called for in general education reform is highly compatible with strategies for inclusion supported by many special and general educators.

The power of special education has been, and continues to be, its emphasis on individualized instruction. As general education becomes more diverse itself, educators are recognizing the need to view all students as individuals. Consequently, at the same time special educators are seeing effective general education practices and environments as appropriate for students with disabilities, general educators are looking to special education for strategies to teach challenging students.

The Research

The research base on inclusion is relatively small and quite varied in its methods. In general, it tends to support the continued need for special education and its particular focus on individualizing instruction, while showing positive benefits of inclusion. In Alaska, the goal is to provide specially designed instruction and supplementary aids and supports in general education settings to the greatest extent possible for effective education of students identified as needing special education. The LRE for most students is the regular classroom.

Now that many schools have been using more inclusive practices for a few years, teachers, administrators, parents and others are interested in what the research has to say about how these practices have affected the students involved. To help provide an understanding of current research, this summary is organized into two main categories: (1) the impact of inclusion on the achievement of students with and those without disabilities; and (2) the way in which inclusion impacts attitudes and relationships of teachers and students.

1. What is the Impact on Achievement?

Much recent research focuses on results for one of three groups of students: students with mild disabilities; those with more significant disabilities; or students who have not been identified as needing special education.

For Students with Mild Disabilities?

Several studies have found that students with mild disabilities who have been included in general education classrooms make better gains than those in pull-out programs or control schools. During the 1992-93 school year, a Montana school district implemented full inclusion of students with disabilities in one of their elementary schools and more limited inclusion in other interested schools (Fishbaugh & Gum, 1994). Identified students progressed toward IEP goals in all but one or two cases, and phenomenal two- to three-year gains were realized by several. Achievement test data demonstrated consistent academic gains made by general education students.

Deno, Maruyama, Espin, and Cohen (1990) studied efforts in Minnesota schools to modify general education classrooms in ways that enhance inclusive opportunities for students with mild disabilities. Student achievement comparisons in reading revealed that both low-achieving students and those with mild disabilities did better in integrated programs. Special education students demonstrated no differences in reading achievement in integrated or resource programs. The special education students performed relatively poorly in both integrated and resource programs when compared with their low-achieving classmates but had more social success in general education settings.

Jenkins, Jewell, Leicester, O'Connor, Jenkins, and Troutner (1994) studied reading achievement in a school that introduced a combination of other changes simultaneously with introducing inclusion and dropping pull-out programs. In comparison to a control school, students in the inclusive school "demonstrated significantly superior gains on several...scales, including reading vocabulary, total reading, and language, with a marginally significant effect on reading comprehension. These positive effects were spread across all student types - regular, remedial and special education" (p. 355). In a recent study (England, 1996), achievement test scores in co-taught classrooms (by special and general education teachers) were found to have held steady in the first year of a district's inclusion efforts, while students whose services were delivered in a pull-out model lost ground. Social and behavioral benefits were noted as well.

Robert Slavin (1996) has concluded that, for students with mild disabilities, powerful prevention and early intervention programs are preferable to later mainstreaming when students have already fallen behind their peers. Good, intensive, individualized instruction is the key.

For Students With More Significant Disabilities?

For students with more moderate or severe disabilities, studies have demonstrated that participation in general education environments results in some academic increases and behavioral and social progress. Cole and Meyer (1991) studied intellectual and social functioning and student-environment interaction for students in 43 different classrooms from 14 schools. No significant differences were found between integrated and segregated students in the traditional domains of self-help skills, gross and fine motor coordination, communication, and adaptive behavior. In the functional domain of social competence, however, children from integrated sites generally progressed (improving their ability to manage their own behavior in social situations, provide negative feedback to others, etc.). Conversely, children from segregated sites generally regressed in each of the traditional skill domains and social competence. Contrary to expectations at the initiation of this study, students in segregated sites did not receive a greater concentration of special educational resources than those in integrated settings.

Saint-Laurent and Lessard (1991) evaluated differences in progress between students in special classes and those in regular classes. Also, in the special classes, they evaluated learning with a functional curriculum compared to a traditional curriculum. The 41 students participating in the study were considered moderately intellectually handicapped and were between the ages of six and 10. Results of the study showed that none of the three models resulted in greater academic progress for the students. However, teachers of regular classes reported more behavioral progress among the students with disabilities placed in their classrooms. Hunt, Farron-Davis, Beckstead, Curtis, and Goetz (1994) conducted a comprehensive effort to evaluate different program placements for students with severe disabilities. Sixteen elementary students, eight receiving educational services in regular classrooms and eight in special education classes, participated in the study. Programs were chosen that met selected criteria for best practices and models for teacher training. Findings consistently revealed the superiority of regular class placements over special education classes, including IEPs with more academic objectives, greater social interaction, and less time spent alone! Results of the study, the authors write, "suggest that there are important differences in the quality and curricular content of written educational programs for children with disabilities who are full-time members of general education classrooms; and there are significant differences in the levels of student engagement in school activities, the type of activities in which they are engaged, the type and level of participation in integrated school environments, and the degree to which they initiate and engage in social interactions with peers and adults" (p. 212). In an earlier study, Hunt and Farron-Davis (1992) found that students placed in inclusive classes had IEPs that contained more references to best practices than students in segregated classes, and were less likely to be engaged in isolated activities and more likely to be engaged with other people in the classroom.

A summary of three meta-analyses of effective settings demonstrated a "small-to-moderate beneficial effect of inclusive education on the academic and social outcomes of special needs students" (Baker, Wang, & Walberg, 1994/95, p.34). Lipsky and Gartner (1995), in their annual national study on inclusion, cite numerous schools and districts that report generally positive academic, behavioral, and social outcomes for students with disabilities, and no reports of negative effects academically.

For Students Without Disabilities?

The fear that inclusion may result in a "watered down" curriculum for students without disabilities, or that less time will be devoted to learning, is not borne out by the research. None of the studies examining outcomes for students without disabilities has found any negative impact for students who are not identified as having disabilities. Fishbaugh and Gum (1994) found that achievement test data demonstrated consistent academic gains by general education students in inclusive classrooms. Hollowood, Salisbury, Rainforth, and Palombaro (1995) found that the quantity and level of time spent on instruction for students without disabilities was not adversely affected by the presence in class of students with severe disabilities. In a study of cooperative learning groups (Hunt, Staub, Alwell, & Goetz, 1994), students without disabilities who facilitated interactions of their peers with severe disabilities did not have their level of achievement affected. Standardized test and report card measures used to determine impact revealed no significant negative academic or behavioral effects on classmates who were educated in classes with students with disabilities in an elementary school of 640 in rural Minnesota (Sharpe, York, & Knight, 1994).

2. What is the Impact on Attitudes and Relationships?

Numerous studies have examined various aspects of attitudes and relationships resulting from inclusion. For the most part, these studies document that efforts to include students with disabilities in the general education classroom have resulted in positive experiences and improved attitudes on the part of students, both with and without disabilities, and teachers alike. Studies by Helmstetter, Peck, and Giangreco (1994) and Stainback, Stainback, Moravcek, and Jackson (1992) found that students develop positive attitudes toward students with disabilities based on the experience of having disabled students in their classrooms. Helmstetter, et al. (1994) also noted that student friendships and relationships seem to be enhanced by inclusion, with greater understanding and empathy evidenced. Staub, Schwartz, Gallucci, and Peck (1995) noted, too, that inclusion facilitated peer friendships. Friendship networks and social relationships were enhanced for students with severe disabilities placed in general education in Fryxell and Kennedy's (1995) study. Both Hall (1994) and Evans, Salisbury, Palombaro, and Goldberg (1994) studied young children's social relationships. Hall (1994) identified reciprocal, positive relationships between children with disabilities and their classmates. Evans, et al. (1994) found that children who attended classrooms with fully included peers with severe disabilities were able to display sophisticated judgments and suggestions when presented with scenarios of common situations.

Students with disabilities participating in a student aide program experienced increased independence, more socialization opportunities, growth in academic skills, and improved behavior. The aides without disabilities experienced greater awareness and appreciation for people with disabilities and better self-esteem, and an increase in responsible behavior (Staub, Spaulding, Peck, Gallucci, & Schwartz, 1996).

Teachers have positive attitudes or develop them over time, especially when inclusion is accompanied by training, administrative and other support, help in the classroom; and, for some, lowered class size, and use of labeling to obtain special services (Phillips, Alfred, Brulli, & Shank, 1990). In one school, reaction of the teachers was overwhelmingly positive toward inclusion; the author suggests that inclusion may not have produced new effects but merely amplified attitudes, philosophies, and practices that existed in the school prior to the start of inclusion (Rain-forth, 1992). Giangreco, Dennis, Cloninger, Edelman, and Schattman (1993) studied teachers who had a student identified as having a severe disability in their class for a year. Results indicate that most teachers reacted to the initial placement cautiously or negatively, but 17 of the 19 teachers "...experienced increased ownership and involvement with the student with severe disabilities in their classes over the course of the school year" (p. 364). Teachers indicated attitude improvement and a willingness to do this again. They also reported "...that the participation of a student with severe disabilities in their class had a positive impact on the child with disabilities, as well as on the child's classmates" (p. 368).

An attitude survey was conducted with high school staff, students and their parents in the Chicago School District (Butler-Hayes, 1995). Principals were most in agreement with the basic goals of inclusion, followed by special education teachers and regular education teachers, respectively. An important implication of this study is that more knowledge, exposure, and experience led to greater acceptance of inclusion. Villa, Thousand, Meyers, and Nevin (1996) surveyed 680 certified special and general education teachers and administrators in 32 schools that had experience in providing inclusive educational opportunities for all children. The professionals surveyed generally believed that educating students with disabilities in general education classrooms results in positive changes in educators' attitudes and job responsibilities. Also, administrative support and collaboration were powerful predictors of positive attitudes toward full inclusion. In another study, 158 teachers in one state returned questionnaires on their perceptions of the supports available to them and needed by them for inclusion (Werts, Wolery, Snyder, & Caldwell, 1996). Training was one of the identified needs. Special and general educators reported similar levels of need for resources, but special educators reported greater availability of resources than general educators. Feedback to York, Vandercook, Macdonald, Heise-Neff, and Caughey (1992) generally indicated that the inclusion experience was positive for students and teachers.

A synthesis of 18 investigations of general education teachers, some teaching in inclusive classrooms, others not, found that about two thirds of them support the concept of mainstreaming/inclusion; half felt mainstreaming/inclusion could provide benefits (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996).

What About Research that Says Inclusion Doesn't Work?

Even though the majority of the research available today supports inclusive education, there is a handful of studies that take an alternative position. For the most part, these studies report situations in which students are placed in general education classrooms without proper supports (Baines, Baines & Masterson, 1994), or they are in regular classrooms but not receiving special education, as defined by law (Zigmond & Baker, 1995). Such studies should definitely raise concerns. It is most inappropriate to "dump" students in classrooms where teachers are unprepared and lack resources to support special education needs in the regular class. These issues reflect the concern stated earlier that both of the terms "special education" and "inclusion" frequently become confused with a program or a place. When this happens, the discussion moves away from a focus on the goal of education, which is to create a successful school experience and to prepare students for life.

Features of Inclusive Practices

Although the research presented in this paper has focused on inclusion of students with disabilities, our intent has been to call attention to good, sound educational practices that can benefit all students. Some of these are highlighted here:

Do you want to know more about inclusive education for all students?

A binder of the original articles cited in this bulletin is titled "Educating Students with Disabilities in General Education Classrooms: Research Articles" and is in the Reference section of the Special Education Service Agency (SESA) Library. Phone: 907-562-7372; Email: afreitag@sesa.org

There are many resources available on inclusive education; following are a few favorites.

Newsletters:

Visit the Following Web Sites:

REFERENCES

Baines, L., Baines, C., & Masterson, C. (1994). Mainstreaming: One school's reality. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(1), 39-40.

Baker, E. T., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (1994). The effects of inclusion on learning. Educational Leadership, 52(4), 33-35.

Baker, E.T., Wang, M.C., & Walberg, H.J. (1995). The effects of inclusion on learning. Educational Leadership, 21(4).

Butler-Hayes, R. (1995). A study of high school stakeholders' attitudes about inclusion in the Chicago Public Schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Chicago, IL: Roosevelt University.

Carlberg, C. & Kavale, K. (1980). The efficacy of special versus regular class placement for exceptional children: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Special Education, 14,(3), 295-309.

Cole, D. A., & Meyer, L. H. (1991). Social integration and severe disabilities: A longitudinal analysis of child outcomes. The Journal of Special Education, 25(3), 340-351.

Dalehim, M., Ed. (1994). Toward inclusive classrooms. West Haven, CT: NEA.

Deno, S., Maruyama, G., Espin, C., & Cohen, C. (1990). Educating students with mild disabilities in general education classrooms: Minnesota alternatives. Exceptional Children, 57(2), 150-161.

England, J. (1996). Teaching Team Concept Helps Missouri District's Inclusion Effort. Inclusive Education Programs, 4(4), 6-7.

Evans, I. M., Salisbury, C., Palombaro, M., & Goldberg, J. S. (1994). Children's perception of fairness in classroom and interpersonal situations involving peers with severe disabilities. The Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 19(4), 326-332.

Ferguson, D. L., Meyer, G., Jeanchild, L., & Zingo, J. (1992). Figuring out what to do with the grownups: How teachers make inclusion "work" for students with disabilities. Journal of the Association of Persons with Severe Handicaps, 17(4), 218-226.

Fishbaugh, M. S., & Gum, P. (1994). Inclusive education in Billings, MT: A prototype for rural schools. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED 369 636).

Fryxell, D. & Kennedy, C.H. (1995). Placement along the continuum of services and its impact on students' social relationships. Journal of the Association of Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20(4), 259-269.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (1994). Inclusive schools movement and the radicalization of special education reform. Exceptional Children, 60(4), 294-309.

Gartner, A., & Lipsky, D.K. (1987). Beyond separate education: Toward a quality system for all students. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 367-395.

Giangreco, M. F., Dennis, R., Cloninger, C., Edelman, S., & Schattman, R. (1993). "I've counted Jon:" Transformational experiences of teachers educating students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 59(4), 359-37.

Hall, L. J. (1994). A descriptive assessment of social relationships in integrated classrooms. The Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 19(4), 302-313.

Helmstetter, E., Peck, C. A., & Giangreco, M. F. (1994). Outcomes of interactions with peers with moderate or severe disabilities: A statewide survey of high school students. The Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 19(4), 263-276.

Hilton, A., & Liberty, K. (1992). The challenge of ensuring educational gains for students with severe disabilities who are placed in more integrated settings. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 27(2), 167-175.

Hocutt, A.M. (1996). Effectiveness of special education: Is placement the critical factor? Special Education for Students with Disabilities, 6(1), 77-102.

Hollowood, T. M., Salisbury, C. L., Rainforth, B., & Palombaro, M. M. (1995). Use of instructional time in classrooms serving students with and without severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 61(3), 242-252.

Hunt, P., & Farron-Davis, F. (1992). A preliminary investigation of IEP quality and content associated with placement in general education versus special education classes. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 17(4), 247-253.

Hunt, P., Farron-Davis, F., Beckstead, S., Curtis, D., & Goetz, L. (1994). Evaluating the effects of placement of students with severe disabilities in general education versus special classes. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps. 19(3) 200-214.

Hunt, P., Staub, D., Alwell, M., & Goetz, L. (1994). Achievement by all students within the context of cooperative learning groups. The Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 19(4), 290-301.

Janney, R. E., Snell, M. E., Beers, M. K., & Raynes, M. (1995). Integrating students with moderate and severe disabilities: Classroom teachers' beliefs and attitudes about implementing an educational change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 1(31), 86-114.

Jenkins, J., Jewell, M., Leicester, N., O'Connor, R. E., Jenkins, L., & Troutner, N. M. (1992). Accommodations for individual differences without classroom ability groups: An experiment in school restructuring. Exceptional Children, 60(4), 344-359.

Kaufman, J. M. (1993). How we might achieve the radical reform of special education. Exceptional Children, 60(1), 6-16

Lipsky, D.K. & Gartner, A. (1995). National study on inclusion: Overview and summary report. In National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion Bulletin, 2(2), 1-8.

Lipsky, D.K. & Gartner, A. (1996). Inclusion, school restructuring, and the remaking of American society. Harvard Educational Review. 66(4), 762-796.

Madden, N.A., & Slavin, R.E. (1983). Mainstreaming students with mild handicaps: Academic and social outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 519-569.

Moore, C. (1996). Excellence and equity in education: A multiple site case study and visit guide evaluation. Unpublished dissertation. University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.

NASBE Study Group on Special Education. (1992). Winners all: A call for inclusive schools. Alexandria, VA: NASBE.

Phillips, W. C., Alfred, K., Brulli, A. R., & Shank, K. S. (1990). The Regular Education Initiative: The will and skill of regular educators. Teacher Education and Special Education, 13(3-4), 182-186.

Rainforth, B. (1992). The effects of full inclusion on regular education teachers. San Francisco: California Research Institute.

Rogers, J. (1993). The inclusion revolution. Phi Delta Kappa Research Bulletin, 11(4), 1-6.

Saint-Laurent, L., & Lessard, J. C. (1991). Comparison of three educational programs for students with moderate mental retardation integrated in regular schools. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 26(4), 370-380.

Salisbury, C., & Chambers, A. (1994). Instructional costs of inclusive schooling. Journal of the Association for Severely Handicapped, 19(3), 215-222.

Schnorr, R. (1990). "Peter? He comes and goes...": First graders' perspectives on a part-time mainstream student. Journal of the Association of Persons with Severe Handicaps, 15(4), 231-240.

Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion 1958-1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional children, 63(1), 59-74

Shanker, A. (1993, September 19). Where we stand. New York Times, p. A23.

Sharpe, M. N., York, J. L., & Knight, J. (1994). Effects of inclusion on the academic performance of classmates without disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 15(5), 281-287.

Slavin, R.E. (1996). Neverstreaming: Preventing learning disabilities. Educational Leadership, 53(5), 4-7.

Smelter, R. W., Rasch, B. W., & Yudewitz, G. L. (1994). Thinking of inclusion for all special needs children? Better think again. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(1), 35-38.

Stainback, S., & Stainback, W., Eds. (1996). Inclusion: A guide for educators. Baltimore: Paul Brookes Publishing Co.

Stainback, W., Stainback, S., Moravec, J., & Jackson, H. J. (1992). Concerns about full inclusion: An ethnographic investigation. In R. A. Villa, J. S. Thousand, W.

Stainback, & S. Stainback (Eds.), Restructuring for caring & effective education: An administrative guide to creating heterogeneous schools (pp. 305 - 324). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Staub, D. & Peck, C.A. (1995). What are the outcomes for nondisabled students? Educational Leadership, 21(4), 36-40.

Staub, D., Spaulding, M.,Peck, C.A.,Gallucci, C., & Schwartz, I. (1996). Using nondisabled peers to support the inclusion of students with disabilities at the junior high school level. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps. 21(4), 194-205.

Staub, D., Schwartz, E., Gallucci, C., & Peck, C. (1994). Four portraits of friendship at an inclusive school. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps. 19(4), 314-325.

U.S. Senate. Committee on Labor and Human Resources. (1997). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997 (Senate Report 105-17), [Online]. Available: http://www.access. gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_ reportsdocid=%20f:sr017.105 [May 9, 1997].

Villa, R.A., & Thousand, J.S., Eds. (1995). Creating an inclusive school. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Villa, R.A., Thousand, J.S., Meyers, H., & Nevin, A. (1996). Teacher and administrator perceptions of heterogeneous education. Exceptional Children, 63(1), 29-45.

Villa, R.A., Thousand, J.S., Stainback, W., & Stainback, S., Eds. (1992). Restructuring for caring and effective education: An administrative guide to creating heterogenous schools. Baltimore: Paul Brookes Publishing Co.

Werts, M.G., Wolery, M., Snyder, E.D. & Caldwell, N.K. (1996). Teachers' perceptions of the supports critical to the success of inclusion programs. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 21(1), 9-21.

Yell, M.L., & Shriner, J.G. (1996). Inclusive education: Legal and policy implications. Preventing School Failure, 40(3), 101-116.

York, J., Vanderbook, T., Mac Donald, C., Heise-Neff, C., & Caughey, E. (1992). Feedback about integrating middle-school students with severe disabilities in general education classes. Exceptional Children, 58(3), 244-258.

Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A. (1993). Best practice: New standards for teaching and learning in America's schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Zigmond, N., & Baker, J. (1995). Concluding comments: Current and future practices in inclusive schooling. The Journal of Special Education, 29(2), 245-250.

 Reprinted with permission from The Western Regional Center

http://www.rrfcnetwork.org/wrrc

The Western Regional Resource Center, 1268 University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, 97403. 541.346.5641, is part of a network of technical assistance agencies funded by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). The center is a program in the University of Oregon Center For Excellence in Developmental Disabilities at the College of Education.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Positive Behavior Supports: Research and Resources 

Online: 

1.      Beach Center on Disability, The University of Kansas. Positive Behavior Support Research. http://www.beachcenter.org/research/?act=view&type=General%20Topic&id=9 

2.      National Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS). Office of Special Education Programs, US Department of Education http://www.pbis.org/main.htm 

3.      Family Village Positive Behavior Supports. Waisman Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison. http://www.familyvillage.wisc.edu/education/pbs.html 

4.   NICHCY (National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities) Connections to Behavior Assessment, Plans, and Positive Supports. http://www.nichcy.org/resources/behavassess.asp

Books and articles:

Becker-Cottrill, B., McFarland, J., & Anderson, V. (2003). A model of positive behavioral support for individuals with autism and their families: The family focus process. Focus on Autism, 18, 113-123.

Bradley, R. E. (2001). Positive Behavior Supports: Research to Practice. Beyond Behavior, 11(1), 3-4.

Fink, D.B. (1995). Discipline in school-age care: Control the climate, not the children. Nashville, TN: School-Age NOTES. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 389 445)

Fox, L., Dunlap, G., & Powell, D. (2002). Young children with challenging behavior: Issues and considerations for behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 4, 208-217.

Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Horner, H. F. (2000). A school-wide approach to student discipline. The School Administrator, 2(57), 20-23.

Kameenui, E.J., & Darch, C.B. (1995). Instructional classroom management: A proactive approach to behavior management. White Plains, NY: Longman. 

Kohn, A. (1996). Beyond discipline: From compliance to community. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 

Lovett, H. (1996). Learning to listen: Positive approaches and people with difficult behavior. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. 

Lucyshyn, J. M., Dunlap, G., & Albin, R. W. (2002). Families and positive behavior support: Addressing problem behavior in family contexts. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. 

Vaughn, B.J., Dunlap, G., Fox, L., Clarke, S., and Bucy, M. (1997). Parent-professional partnership in behavioral support: A case study of community-based intervention. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 22, 186-19

Thanks to Kathleen M. Whitbread, Ph.D. for contributing this list

back to top

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inclusion Research: 4 Selections contributed by Colleen Tomko

Learn more about Kids Together at www.kidstogether.org

1.  http://www.coe.wayne.edu/wholeschooling/WS/WSPress/WSRptWI/WSR%20WI%20Cross%20Schls%20Report.pdf

Finding 3: Inclusion improves the educational experience for all kids.
Inclusion may benefit students with disabilities, but what are the experiences
of their nondisabled classmates? This is often a concern on the part of general
educators and parents. In an interview, one parent shared, "We are an inclusive
school. Some parents think inclusion infringes on their child's right to learn.
I explain to them that every child has a right to be here and learn. I would
like to have more parents aware that having different people in their child's
classroom enriches the life of their child. I think the majority of parents
feel the same as I do." Another parent said, "I value the inclusion at this
school. I had one child who was gifted and I wasn't sure about inclusion for
her, but there is more to school than academics. I am a full
supporter."

Many students without disabilities experience the benefit of having a special
educator available to make modifications and provide support for everyone. The
students who are at-risk or delayed, but don't qualify for special education,
especially benefit from the additional resources. In one of the middle schools,
a general educator mentioned that she feels the entire class needs special help
sometimes, and that total inclusion had allowed the classes to be significantly
smaller, while giving all the kids greater attention. The special education
teacher said, "I like to get to know the kids and be a resource person to them.
I get to know so many of the kids, not just kids with learning disabilities,
but some of the gray area kids. The kids maybe have never been referred but
they are experiencing problems and may need the special help." This proactive
support also reduces the number of referrals for special education. The
students are getting help from a specialist without having to be referred and
labeled. All of the students also have opportunities to get support for
test-taking, note-taking, strategy instruction, etc. For example, one teacher
said, "Some of the students with special needs need to take their tests in a
quiet area, and they can have the test read to them. However, this isn't only
available for students with special needs, I even have some high-level students
who need help with the reading. They can also be pulled out to a quiet place
where they can get support." Students receive support for note-taking as well
as test-taking. During one observation, all of the students learned how to do a
graphic organizer to understand more about the Russian rulers that they were
studying. This was necessary for some of the students, but all of the students
gained form the modification.

Because special education teachers are involved in instruction for more
students, schools are also able to offer a broader range of course options for
everyone. As one teacher commented, "The 'Pilot' program was designed for kids
to actually receive English credit to improve their reading strategies. It
isn't just for students with special needs. It is coordinated with the
curriculum in the other classes and available to everyone." Another program was
called "Resource." One teacher explained, "Resource is a structured study hall.
Kids receive a quarter credit. They can't choose to sleep through it because we
teach strategies in it. We teach when the skills are needed. Some kids need two
resource periods, but they still only get one-quarter credit. Sometimes
students need two periods because they have health problems or learning needs
that warrant the two periods." Reading Recovery was a special program that was
offered at the elementary level. An elementary teacher said, "I looked at
different students in my class using the Reading Recovery approach. This seemed
to have an effect on all students, some who had disabilities and some who
didn't. One general education student was quiet and this gave her more
confidence. With the special education kids, it seemed to help because they
were reading the book so many times." Students all learn differently and these
opportunities proved valuable for a range of students. One teacher made this
final comment, "I just try to remember that the kids will learn in different
ways, I try to keep this in mind when I am planning lessons and new programs."
Finally, the only counter example to this finding was based on a few
observations. It appeared that at times, students with special needs took up a
great amount of teacher time. Of course, there could be potential negative
effects from this happening on a consistent basis. When teachers are teaching
alone and student needs are great, the teacher's time and energy is
strained. This is important to monitor since it often means that more support is
needed in the classroom during that time period.

#####

2.  http://www.inclusiveschools.org/PDF/Kids.pdf
The lessons learned by making accommodations for students with disabilities to
participate in educational and community activities may be among the most
salient positive outcomes for typically developing students in inclusive
schools. Staub and Peck (1995) identified five potential benefits of inclusion
for students without disabilities that also facilitate membership:

1. Reduced fear of human differences, accompanied by increased comfort and
awareness
2. Growth in social cognition
3. Improvements in self-concept
4. Development of personal principles
5. Warm and caring friendships

#####

3. http://www.internationalsped.com/documents/Educ._Benefits(2).doc
Academic Benefits of Inclusion for Students Without Disabilities

Concerns have often been raised in the inclusion literature about the impact of
the presence of students with developmental disabilities, particularly those
with challenging behaviors, on the learning of typical students (Kauffman,
1993; Peltier, 1997; Staub & Peck, 1995). Hollowood et al. (1994) investigated
the degree to which the presence of students with severe disabilities in
inclusive classrooms affected the time allocated for instruction, the actual
time used for instruction, and students' engaged time. Classrooms with and
without students with severe disabilities were compared on all three variables.
The average time allocated and used for instruction was comparable for both
types of classrooms. There were no differences in the percentage of time
typical students were engaged in instruction across the two classroom types.
This was a significant finding, as it demonstrated that the presence of
students with severe disabilities, even those with challenging behaviors, did
not negatively impact the amount of engaged time for typical learners. This
finding has since been replicated in other studies (Peltier, 1997; Staub &
Peck, 1995). 

Hunt, Staub et al. (1994), assessed the achievement of students with and
without disabilities in the context of co-operative mathematics learning groups
in inclusive classrooms. Typical students were taught to prompt, cue, and
facilitate specific communication and motor skills for students with severe
disabilities in co-operative group activities. The results indicated that the
peer-facilitated interactions did not negatively affect the peers' achievement
of academic objectives. Students without disabilities in the experimental
co-operative learning groups performed equally as well as their peers in
co-operative groups that did not include a student with a disability.

In a qualitative research study of an inclusive elementary school, the authors
made a number of anecdotal observations regarding academic outcomes for
students without disabilities (Staub, Schwartz,