![Full Inclusion or Total Delusion? (qtd. in Hornby, 1997, p. 68) “ The history of the twentieth century for disabled people has been one of exclusion. The twenty-first century will see the struggle of disabled people for inclusion go from strength to strength. In such a struggle, special, segregated education has no role to play” -M. Oliver Understanding Disability (1996) “… full inclusion can provide only an illusion of support for all students, an illusion that may trick many into jumping on the bandwagon…[S]pecial education is in danger of riding the bandwagon called ‘full inclusion’ to its own funeral.” -J.M. Kauffman, The Illusion of Full Inclusion (1995)](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/spedpresentation2-091111154909-phpapp01/85/Sped-Presentation2-3-320.jpg)
Sped Presentation2
- 1. What is Inclusion? Full or part-time placement of students with disabilities in the same school or classroom they would attend if they were not disabled (Alper, 1997, p.6)
- 2. So…what’s “full inclusion”? Inclusion without exception The notion that LRE is always the mainstream classroom All supports and services must be taken to that child in the mainstream setting Extremely controversial topic (Evans, 2002, p. 1)
- 3. Full Inclusion or Total Delusion? (qtd. in Hornby, 1997, p. 68) “ The history of the twentieth century for disabled people has been one of exclusion. The twenty-first century will see the struggle of disabled people for inclusion go from strength to strength. In such a struggle, special, segregated education has no role to play” -M. Oliver Understanding Disability (1996) “… full inclusion can provide only an illusion of support for all students, an illusion that may trick many into jumping on the bandwagon…[S]pecial education is in danger of riding the bandwagon called ‘full inclusion’ to its own funeral.” -J.M. Kauffman, The Illusion of Full Inclusion (1995)
- 4. Key Concepts of Inclusion Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) Special Ed. provided at public expense in conformity with the IEP Appropriate varies from student to student Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) “ To the maximum extent appropriate ” SwD educated in general education classrooms Restrictiveness a measure of “proximity to, and communication with the ordinary flow of persons in society” (qtd. in Yell, 2006, p. 310) FAPE vs. LRE...which wins? School’s primary obligation is to FAPE IEP team selects LRE most compatible with FAPE
- 5. Key Concepts of Inclusion (continued…) Supplementary Aids and Services Modification of the GenEd classroom for the inclusion of SwD Ensures accessibility of information and equal participation for all Key to meeting LRE Continuum of Service Continuum of alternative placements available to students with disabilities Arranged from least to most restrictive
- 6. The Continuum of Services GenEd GenEd w/consultation GenEd with part-time assistance Part day in Special Ed classes Full day in Special Ed classes Special Ed School Homebound Placement
- 7. LRE , Inclusion , and Mainstreaming …oh my! SwD entitled to education with peers w/o disabilities “to the maximum extent appropriate” (IDEA) Not a setting Placement of SwD in general education setting with peers w/o disabilities Somewhat dated, less comprehensive program than inclusion Inclusion/mainstreaming sometimes LRE, but not always! Not IDEA Synonymous in court Narrower than LRE Least Restrictive Environment Mainstreaming Inclusion
- 8. History of Inclusion Paradigm Before 1960s SPED = segregation 1960s Civil rights movement— integration 1968 L.M. Dunn article spearheads SPED integration 1970s EAHCA 1975 promises LRE Part-time inclusion prevails 1980s REI movement – “Good teachers can teach to all students” Limited full-time inclusion of high-incidence disabilities (LD, EBD, etc.) 1990s Full inclusion movement— full-time inclusion for all Hornby, 1997, p. 69; Kavale et al., 2000, p. 281
- 9. Why Inclusion? Educational Beliefs All students can learn regardless of disability (diversity trumps difference) All students learn through participation with and modeling of competent peers All classrooms can be equipped to support all students (Alper, 1995, p. 6-16; Taylor, 2006, p. 50; Hornby, 1997, p. 69)
- 10. Why Inclusion? Social Outcomes Improve self-esteem and social skills of students with disabilities Improve academic achievement of students with disabilities Challenge stereotypes of students without disabilities Reduce disproportionality in special education Reduce stigma attached to special education Promote greater individualization for all GenEd students (UDL) (Alper, 1995, p. 6-16; Taylor, 2006, p. 50; Hornby, 1997, p. 69)
- 11. Why Inclusion? Other Beliefs… Cost effective (Alper, 1995, p. 16; Hornby, 1997, p. 81) $$$ Or is it…?
- 12. Objections to Full Inclusion Rhetoric over reason Emotion over evidence Advocacy for programs over advocacy for children Savings over services Hornby, 1997, p. 76-79; Kavale et al., 2000, 279-283
- 13. Obstacles to Full Inclusion in GenEd Classroom Lack of teacher motivation (NIMBY) Lip-service to inclusion Reluctant practice (time and energy concerns) Lack of teacher efficacy Failed differentiation (one-size fits all) Botched co-teaching Lack of student awareness Social contact does not automatically improve social consciousness Anxiety of students with disabilities over mainstreaming Kavale et al., 2000, 285-289
- 14. OSSE Issued a statewide inclusion policy Particularly affects two parts of Section 612 (a) Unless services cannot be achieved satisfactorily, students with disabilities and students without disabilities should be educated together. OSSE is responsible for ensuring that the mandate is met Non-compliance with SPED indicators ensuring: FAPE LRE OSSE, 2008 Inclusion in DC (Cont)
- 15. Inclusion in DC Blackman-Jones Two lawsuits filed in 1997 vs. DC Gov’t and DCPS Blackman vs District of Columbia Challenged school system’s failure to hold special education due process hearings Jones vs. District of Columbia Charged system with delayed implementation of SPED plans ordered by hearing officers or negotiations made with parents or advocates. Includes thousands of plaintiffs Make up a class and are called class members OSSE, 2008
- 16. Inclusion in DC (Cont) Blackman-Jones (Cont) Class Members Over 6500 members Requested or received SPED services at a DC public school (DCPS or Charter) or attended private school funded by DC between Jan 1, 1995-March 1, 2008. Experienced delays receiving services because of an untimely due process hearing or decision or school did not implement due process hearing decision or settlement agreement. DC agreed to provide all members with an award Blackman/Jones Compensatory Education Does not include all DC students identified with special needs
- 17. Inclusion in DC (Cont) Full Service Schools (FSS) Model In-school services not offered regularly in DC schools Academic coaches Behavioral and mental health professionals Support for teachers in students to increase academic achivement and social wellbeing Best practices, differentiated instruction, behavior management Strong partnerships between families and schools Currently only on a middle school level- looking to expand 11 schools DC Public Schools, 2009
- 18. Inclusion in DC (Cont) Schoolwide Applications Model (SAM) Increases supports, services, and resources in Gen. Ed settings Enhanced staffing Intensive professional development Technical assistance on integrated services From isolated/separated support services to full integration of services Response to an intervention model Using indiv. Student achievement and behavior data to identify needs Ongoing prof. development and technical assistance Coaches assigned to every school Currently in 15 Elementary schools- looking to expand DC Public Schools, 2009
- 19. Least Restrictive Environment? Most students with special needs attend the majority of the classes with Gen Ed. students Some classrooms use a co-teaching model One Gen Ed./ One SPED SPED teachers work with both Gen Ed. And SPED students in adhering to inclusive model Students who cannot be accommodated have the option to petition for placement
- 20. Least Restrictive Environment? Kingsbury Day School Private School 90% of students come from DCPS School for students with special needs Still accomodations that DCPS cannot meet Puts LRE vs. Inclusion
- 21. $$$$ RESOURCES! How Many of Us Have Them? $$$$ Teacher Lay-offs Approx. 229 teachers Budget Deficit Many Schools still not in compliance re: SPED staffing Not enough teachers with adequate SPED training to promote inclusive model Cannot afford co-teachers
- 22. $$$$ RESOURCES! How Many of Us Have Them? $$$$ (cont) Do not have the resources we need to promote the inclusive model we advertise. In promoting a model we do not have the resources to support or implement, it compromises the LRE of all students Students with disabilities are not getting the differentiated instruction they are entitled to Gen Ed. Teachers= generally not equipped to work with IEPs Little SPED training required to obtain Gen. Ed. licensing
- 23. Recommendations Implement incentives for Gen. Ed. teachers to become SPED certified Salary increases Currently, teachers only receive $1500 a year extra for dual-certification Make dual cert requirement for highly qualified status Offer discounted/accelerated cert. programs Through local partnerships/grants Loan forgiveness Over a third of DC’s residents are recognized as functionally illiterate- literacy training emphasis in several SPED programs in DC More dual cert. teachers=less co-teachers= save $$$ Team of paraprofessionals for extra presence in classroom
- 24. Benefits For Gen Ed. And SPED students All students can benefit from teachers who have specialized training in working with/differentiating instruction for a variety of learners Schools save money by eliminating co-teachers Can work on increasing the pay of dual cert. teachers More staff to manage case loads More people qualified to lead IEP meetings and advocate for students with disabilities. Single-certified SPED teachers can focus on students who need accommodations that extend past an inclusive classroom
- 25. References Kavale, K. and Forness, S. (2000). History, Rhetoric, and Reality: Analysis of the Inclusive Debate. Remedial and Special Education . 22 (5), 279-296. Hornby, G., Atkinson, M., and Howard, J. (1997). Controversial Issues in Special Education . London: David Fulton Publishers. Alper, S., Schloss, P., Etscheidt, S. and Macfarlane C.A. (1995). Inclusion: Are We Abandoning or Helping Our Students? Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press, Inc. Yell, M. (2006). The Law and Special Education (2 nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson