Inclusion Educators Talk About "Inclusion"

Inclusion Educators talk about "inclusion" as an educational model, but in truth, it means different things to different people. When some people say "inclusion," they mean full inclusion, where the child spends all or very nearly all of his or her day in a regular classroom, with special education staff providing support within that classroom to the fullest extent possible. Some of these children have full time aides assigned to them while others may receive support an hour or less out of the day.

Others view "inclusion" as any program where students spend part of their day in a regular classroom (Stahl, 2000). No matter what model is used, however, when children with emotional problems are placed in a regular classroom, it means that a child with significant difficulty controlling his or her behavior is in a regular classroom. Under some circumstances it is easier to think about inclusion for a student than under some other circumstances.

It might be very easy to think about inclusion for a sweet boy with an IQ around 60 who tries hard and who rarely deliberately misbehaves. For some educators it might be easy to think about inclusion for an autistic child who has academic potential, especially if the district has a good support system in place, with experts who can help them as they learn to meet that child's unique needs. Children with emotional problems, however, can be harder to think positively about.

If a child has temper outbursts that disrupt the class, it is easy to think "He doesn't belong here; he interferes with the education of his classmates." The child may resist interventions to help head off such behaviors, or they may work inconsistently.

The situation for children with emotional or behavior problems is made worse by behavior standards embraced by many school districts, often called "zero tolerance." A "zero tolerance" policy may dictate that no instances of bullying will ever be overlooked, but the student in question may not have better skills in place to replace bullying to meet his needs. It is easy to develop a mindset that all the child's dysfunctional behaviors are willful.

In order to have a successful inclusion program that includes children with emotional problems, the staff will have to work actively to develop a mindset of trying to understand the child and not just blame him. One solution to this problem is to provide services in a "wrap-around" manner. Described in the textbook, such a program works on all the stressors on the child's life rather than focusing only on the school day. It analyzes all of the child's needs, including those for counseling and socialization.

Such an approach emphasizes the child not only as a member of his school, but as a member of his community as well. A wrap-around approach emphasizes solving the child's problems within his natural environment. Levy and Washington (in Lombardi's book) emphasize that collaboration is essential. They describe a school in Brooklyn that has made true collaboration between special education staff and general education staff a priority, blocking out time for staff to communicate with each other.

They have also broadened their definition of communication, realizing that sometimes people will not be able to meet face-to-face, using phones and email to augment communication. Fred West, in the same book, looks at the issue of the instructional decisions that must be made for successful inclusion. Full inclusion means the same education other children get to the fullest extent possible. This means that children with emotional or behavioral problems are students with diagnoses. Their needs are exceptional and will require that their instruction be carefully considered.

West suggests systematic analysis regarding the academic support needed by an included student. One of those systems is called the "ACID" test, for "Analysis of Classroom and Instructional Demands" (p. 35). He also recommends talking about specific student needs using questions rather than statements, because open-ended questions facilitate discussion while statements may sound final, permanent and correct.

Thus a team might ask "Why did Joshua lose his temper during math?" rather than stating "Joshua lost his temper in math because it got him out of completing his assignment." The question allows the team to consider alternate explanations. Instructionally, West looks at academic interventions in terms of the amount of adjustment they reflect. So, his "Level 1" looks at what.