Inclusion Essay, Research Paper
Within the past decades and a half considerable discussion has occurred
regarding the most appropriate setting within which to provide education for
students in special education. Although the change in the educational
environment is significant for handicapped student the concepts of inclusion
also bring up new issues for the regular education classroom teachers. The
movement toward full inclusion of special education students in general
education setting has brought special education to a crossroad and stirred
considerable debate on its future direction. Proponents of full inclusion argue
that the needs of students in general education. The problems dealing with
children who have special needs have been the subject of much educational
research and findings have helped educators provide programs and services for
many children who otherwise would not have been helped. Full inclusion is
"an approach on which students who are disabled or at risk receive all
instruction in a regular classroom setting" (Hardman, Drew, Egan, &
Wolf, 1993). Inclusion is more effective when students with special need are
placed in a general education classroom after adequate planning. Inclusion does
not mean unilateral changes in student’s placements without appropriate
preparation. In 1990’s, inclusion appears to be emerging terminology of advise
to describe educating students in special education. P. L. 94-142 (1975) in
effect, reinforced a separate special educational system to meet the educational
needs of children identified as having a disability. A cornerstone of the
federal law (reauthorized in 1990 as the federal law (reauthorized in 1990 as
the Individual with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA) is that students with
disabilities should receive an appropriate education in the least restrictive
environment (LRE0 until recently, courts favored conclusions that the most
appropriate education for students with extensive disabilities would most likely
occur in segregate setting that had more resources and special help. But as we
approach the 21st century, advocates are still concerned about discrimination
and the courts have been rethinking the need for physical inclusion to enhance
the opportunities for learning from students who do not have disabilities.
Inclusion is not a program that a school system should consider as a way to save
money. To do it right will cost more money. However, the pay off for all
students is likely to be worth the extra cost. We have found that in most cases’
students with special needs who are included are achieving at far higher levels
than they did in segregated classrooms. We have also found them blossoming
socially, and many have developed real friendship with children in their
neighborhoods. In additions, all students with special needs who are included
are achieving at for higher levels than they did in segregated classrooms. We
have also found them blossoming socially, and many have developed real
friendship with children in their neighborhoods. In addition, all students have
benefitted from having such extra supports as curricular adaptations, study
aids, and more individualized assistance. All students are learning that
everyone brings strengths and needs to every situation. They are learning about
conflict resolutions and the importance of being responsible. Things that were
stumbling blocks at first have become benefits. For example, greater
collaboration among teachers and other staff members has allowed them to share
skills and resources and has led to the improvement of all instruction. We no
longer have regular education supplies and special education supplies. We simply
have educational supplies, and money has been reallocated to reflect that.
Morever, we no longer have the needs for a large fleet of special education
buses to bus students out of their home attendance areas for a particular
special education class. Our school system did not increase funding during two
years of inclusion; we operated on a frozen budget. Though costs have now
increased as more schools in our division have begun to adopt inclusion, our
per-pupil expenditures for students with special need are still less than those
of most neighboring school system, especially those that bus students to other
schools and those that pay tuition for students with special needs to attend
school in other school districts. We also found ways to reallocate resource
despite the fact that Virginia allocates special education funds categorically
and not according to inclusion models. We have found that, through writing
waivers, we can please teachers in cross-categorical positions so that they may
consult from school to school on student needs a cost comparison of
self-contained versus inclusive programs in our system showed that, with the
latter, money could be saved on classroom equipment, transportation,
instructional materials and mobile classrooms. With the recent passage of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the continuing success stories emerging from
inclusion programs around the county, we believe that our school reflect a
society that is ready to embrace all children regardless of abilities or
disabilities so that they can be educated together and learn to value one
another as unique individuals. Those schools that continue to struggle to keep
students with disabilities out of general education classrooms should seriously
consider investing their time, effort, and money instead in the creation of
environment that welcome all students. What was learned from this journey?
First, they learned that they could succeed in general classes, as did other
at-risk students and students with disabilities. The general and special
educators learned several teaching procedures that worked under a co-teaching
argument. The school staff learned that inclusion would not succeed unless major
changes were made in terms of the content that was taught, the methods used to
assess competence, and the support provided to teachers and students when
difficulties were encountered in the general education classroom. Second, the
planning team learned that general educators at Clayton High School were
reluctant to give up teaching content for leaning strategy instruction,
particularly if the class was a heterogeneous class designed for average to
above-average students. Teachers, at Clayton High School received tremendous
latitude in making decisions about curriculum, they still felt pressure to teach
certain core skills and competencies and to keep expectations at a very high
level. Thus, the teachers found that students with disabilities needed more
intensive instruction and many more practice opportunities to master leaning
strategies than did typical students. This type of instruction requires time
that is often not available in general education classes. Given the limitation
of the general education classroom, the Clayton High staff not believes that the
ideal plan for inclusion is to teach students with disabilities strategies in
the resource room and teach all students a brief, adapted version of relevant
strategies in general education classes. This approach provides instruction in
strategies for all students while providing a review for students with
disabilities, was are more likely to use the strategy because it is part of the
general education curriculum. Foremost among this positive outcomes was the
marked increase in collaboration among the staff. Specifically, the staff at
Clayton High realized the importance of developing a support system for all
at-risk students to ensure that inclusion would be successful for low-performing
students as well as students with disabilities. Therefore, a training center was
conceptualized that would provide leaning strategy and study skills instruction
and tutoring for all students. The following year, the remedial teacher and
their teaching interns opened the Mark Twain Learning Center. IN addition,
during the use of objectives tests and use more alternative or performance-based
assessments (e.g., portfolio projects and presentations). These and others
change helped students with disabilities and low-achieving students experience
success in regular classes. What was learned from this journey? First, the
learned that they could succeed in general classes, as did other at-risk
students and students with disabilities. The general and special educations
learned several teaching procedures that worked under a co-teaching arrangement.
The school staff learned that inclusion would succeed unless major changes were
made in terms of the content that was taught the methods used to assess
competence and the support provided to teachers and students when difficulties
were encountered in the general education classroom. Second, the planning team
learned that general education at Clayton High were reluctant to give up
teaching content for leaning strategy instruction, particularly the class was
designed for average to above average students. Although teachers at Clayton
High received tremendous latitude in making decisions about curriculum, they
still felt pressure to teach certain core skills and competencies and to keep
expectations at a very high level. However, they were willing to integrate brief
instruction in related study skills and were especially enthusiastic about the
use of content enhancement routines. Third, the teachers found that students
with disabilities needed more intensive instruction and many more practice
opportunities to master leaning strategies than did typical students. This type
of instruction requires time that is often not available in general education
classes. Given the limitations of the general education classroom, the Clayton
High staff now believes that the idea plan for inclusion is to teach students
with disabilities strategies in the resource students with disabilities
strategies in the resource room and then teach all students a brief, adapted
version of relevant strategies in general education classes. This approach
provides instruction in strategies for all students, while providing a review
for students with disabilities who are then more likely to use strategy, because
it is part of the general education curriculum. Finally, the teachers discussed
- as many other educators and researchers have concluded that detracting and
inclusion of students with mild disabilities in regular classes require
extensive planning. Many of these students have had significant learning and
behavioral disabilities. The faculty has always been and continues to be a group
of hard-working dedicated competent professionals who care about students and
are willing to make adaptations and modifications for the benefit of students.
However, even this group of professionals could not make detaching or inclusion
work for everyone without significant changes in teaching and assessment methods
and in support system. Inclusion can work but only if it is supported inclusion.
Successfully including students with mild disabilities at the secondary level
requires both administrative and instructional adjustment. In the two cases,
studies presented here, teachers received considerable time for planning and
managing administrative support throughout the change process. Changes require
considerable time and effort. The instructional program was characterized by a
high level of collaboration among general and special education teachers,
specifying a scope and sequence of learning strategy instruction across classes
and grades, and a commitment to alter what and how content was delivered in the
general education classroom through the use of various content enhancement
routines. In short, successful inclusion of students with learning disabilities
withing the general education classroom was realized only when the set of
instructional conditions associated with the notion of supported inclusion was
met. This case study describes the educational experiences of students with
learning disabilities (LD) who were included full-time in general education
classes in one elementary school in Virginia. Date for two students with LD were
collected through observations, interviews, and record reviews. The students
were observed in reading, mathematics, and science classes. Interviews were
conducted with the principal, the special education supervisor, one special
education teaches, two general education teachers, two students, and two
parents. The review of student records provided information on achievement
levels, referral information, and IEP goals. Descriptions of the context for
inclusion, the model of including the role of special education teachers, and
students’ educational experiences were included in the case report. Valley
Elementary School was one of 32 elementary schools in Volunteer County School
District, a district serving over 47,000 students. The principal described their
program as: A decentralized special education program in this school system. We
have one school board for all general education and special education. The
process in volunteer works this way, I mean, if a child is referred for possible
evaluation, the referral comes right here. Every building has a designated
special education coordinator. The referral goes to the special education
coordinator and that person will bring the case before the child-study team for
the screening components. A decision in made at the point as to whether or not
to proceed to full evaluation and we are in control of those evaluations
totally. Every school has educational diagnosticians available at least
part-time and school psychologists . . . So we are in control of those
components and we take it all the way through to eligibility in writing of the
IEP and if the child needs to go, say, to a central program that is not in my
building, we simply all the principals of the school down the road that has the
EMR class or the Ed self-contained class and we say, "we have got one
coming to you." Nothing goes through the central office. It is a lot of
work, but it puts all of those services to the customer, to the parent, and it
gives us control. The collaborative teaching model at Valley Elementary School
was developed locally, without university involvement, from inspiration and
training provided by staff in the country special education offices. The
collaborative teaching model was implemented initially at the high school level,
then expanded to several elementary schools in the county. The special education
supervisor explained: "It started in secondary because there was a real
need for a secondary program. The institutional specialist for learning
disabilities had been looking at trying to find a way to improve the secondary
program. This, the collaborative teaching model one of the special education
options available to students with LD in Volunteer County School District. The
principal reported that at Valley School they moved into a collaborative
teaching model slowly, beginning only with fifth grades (in 19988), then serving
only third and fourth grades (in 1990). By 1991, however, the program had
expanded to include third, fourth, and fifth grades. The collaborative teaching
model provided full-time services in general education classes for students with
LD who had been served in a resource program. Only 23 of the 40 students with LD
and two of the seven special education teachers were involved in the
collaborative learning disabilities programs in this school: the remaining
students with LD and students with other disabilities who attended this school
were taught in resource rooms and self-contained classes by the remaining five
special education teachers. The students with LD in the collaborative program
were all assigned to the general education teachers were co-teaching. The
collaborative teaching model, strategy training was a central component.
Accommodating individual student needs was identified as a second important
component of the collaborative teaching model. Local personnel in Virginia
developed an inclusion model to improve services for students with LD. The
collaborative teaching model they chose involved placing into the mainstream
students whose IEP goals could be met in a special education teacher committed
to changing her role, and a general education teacher volunteering to
participate in the collaboration. The model was implemented in only one class