Special education inclusion in mainstream classrooms

¶ … country's public schools are experiencing dwindling state education budgets and increased unfunded mandates from the federal government, the search for optimal approaches to providing high quality educational services for students with learning disabilities has assumed new importance and relevance. In an attempt to satisfy the mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, a growing number of special educators agree that full inclusion is the optimal approach for providing the individualized services needed by young learners with special needs. Known as "mainstreaming" in the past, full inclusion means integrating students with special physical, cognitive or emotional needs into traditional classroom setting. Practices that promote full inclusion for students with special needs assist educators in focusing instruction in innovative ways to help meet the educational needs of an increasingly diverse student population with a wide array of specialized needs. Critics of full inclusion argue that in many if not most instances, young learners with special needs fail to receive the specialized training they are going to need to succeed after they leave school. Proponents of full inclusion counter that all students can benefit from inclusive practices and resources are available in the community to assist with daily needs training. To determine the facts, this study uses a review of the relevant peer-reviewed and scholarly literature and a qualitative meta-analysis concerning these issues, followed by a summary of the research and important findings in the conclusion.

Identifying Opportunities for Improving Post-High School Outcomes for Learning Disabled Students

For many children, inclusion is a wonderful opportunity and is long overdue. For others, it represents a drastic but potentially beneficial change. For still others, it is cruel. -- Richard W. Smelter, Bradley W. Rausch and Gary J. Yudewitz, 2009

Chapter 1:

Introduction

The epigraph above is reflective of the diverse views that exist with respect to the provision of education services to learning disabled students in full inclusive classrooms. This diversity of views is due in part to the relatively recentness of the practice. In fact, prior to the 1950s, the federal government was not actively involved in the provision of educational services for special needs students in the United States to any significant degree. For instance, Horn and Tynan report that before 1950, "A few federal laws had been passed to provide direct educational benefits to persons with disabilities. These laws, however, were in the tradition of providing residential arrangements for persons with serious disabilities, services that had existed since colonial times" (2001, p. 36). Moreover, there were some significant geographic differences involved in the types of educational services that were provided special needs students, even after 1950. In this regard, Horn and Tynan emphasize that, "Although some public schools undoubtedly provided exceptional services to children with disabilities, others did not. Indeed, as recently as 1973, perhaps as many as one million students were denied enrollment in public schools solely on the basis of their disability" (2001, p. 36). Indeed, in a number of cases, young learners with special needs were not even allowed near their non-disabled peers. For instance, Dalton, Estrada, Tharp and Yamauchi (2000) emphasize that, "In schools of the common tradition, access to instructional opportunities has been by no means equally distributed across all students. Those who were 'tracked' into 'trade,' 'industrial,' or 'commercial' curricula were not offered higher-level academic subjects; special education students were excluded from contact with (or even observation of) their mainstream peers" (p. 4). By sharp contrast, today, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act mandate that the learning needs of these young people must be accommodated in the nation's public schools.

In the United States, the provision of special education services has been most recently influenced by the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (Linn, 2011). This legislation was part of a larger trend in American society that reflected the belief that the majority of young special needs students are capable of achieving as much as their nondisabled counterparts and that their education should be provided in mainstream classrooms (Linn, 2011). The key to success for these young people is academic achievement with little or no emphasis on the daily living skills that will needed following their emancipation and graduation from school. In fact, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) specifies that students with special needs can be removed from the general education setting only if they fail to achieve academically, as measured by formal assessments, even when provided with the required supports, aids, and services (Linn, 2011). Indeed, Linn (2011) emphasizes that, "The message is clear: The primary goal of inclusion for students with special needs in the United States is academic achievement" (p. 59).

This point is also made by Santoli and Sachs (2011) who report that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 emphasize that special needs students must have access to the general education curriculum. The IDEA legislation was further strengthened by the provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 which mandates that all students must make adequate yearly progress (AYP), and that teachers, principals, superintendents, school boards, and state boards of education are accountable for the progress of their special needs students (Santoli & Sach, 2011). As Santoli and Sachs (2011) point out, "Inclusion is no longer an option, and it is essential that schools find ways to implement it effectively" (2011, p. 2). Taken together, it is apparent that full inclusion is the law of the land and educators must take steps to accommodate these requirements in a responsive fashion (Modell & Megginson, 2001). In this regard, the U.S. Secretary for Education, Cameron Benchley emphasizes that, "For too long, the answer to educating students with disabilities was to isolate them and deny them the same educational experiences others were having. Those days are over. The fact is -- 60% of students with disabilities today spend 80% of their time in the regular school environment" (2011, para. 2). These issues directly relate to the problem of interest to this study which is discussed further below.

Statement of the problem

The past 4 decades have been enormously influential on the manner in which special needs students are educated in the United States. According to Linn (2011), "In the United States today, special education legislation has been influenced by the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act, itself an outgrowth of our society's belief that most children, regardless of ability, can achieve as well as their nondisabled peers and should do so in the general education system" (p. 59). In fact, the research to date does indicate that full inclusion is the best avenue educationally for students with disabilities. Certainly, to the extent that the specialized resources that are required to provide the complete range of services needed by these special needs learners are available to support full inclusion is the extent to which their academic and personal outcomes will be optimized, but these resources are by definition scarce and the issue of concern in this study is for moderate to severely impaired students who are fully included in the classroom. These young learners may demonstrate academic improvement through standardized testing, but what happens to the necessary life skills they are missing from the full inclusion classroom? As Jackson and Kozleski (1999) point out, "A full inclusion model suggests that the focus of instruction for a student with severe disabilities may need to shift away from an emphasis on functional life skills across the domains of community, home, work, recreation, and leisure because typical classrooms support a curriculum based on literacy, math, science, and social studies" (p. 153). Most of the research to date focuses on the here and now and ignores the future needs of these young people as they become adults and seek meaningful educational and employment opportunities.

Background and Overview

Full inclusive practices in the classroom require a careful assessment of the individualized learning needs of special needs students, and these needs may be diverse and complex. Irrespective of the severity and type of learning disabilities that are involved, though, the bottom-line issue for educators is formulating curricular offerings that are appropriate. For instance, according to Booth, Nes and Stromstad (2003), "Inclusion does not just involve a focus on the barriers experienced by learners but is about the development of the detail of the cultures, policies and practices in education systems and educational institutions so that they are responsive to the diversity of learners and value them equally" (p. 2). Special needs students are certainly no different than their non-learning disabled counterparts in the full inclusive classroom when it comes to wanting to live an independent life and pursue their goals and dreams after high school. In this regard, Liipfert (2010) reports that, "Most children dream of the day when they leave home and start on their path to independence. Some of these children face a struggle to achieve independence due to a developmental or intellectual disability. Parents and other advocates have grappled for years with the transition from home and secondary school systems to life after high school" (p. 60).

Some if not many of these special needs students will still require specialized care following graduation, but if they are provided with the training and tools they need to live as independently as possible during their high school years, it is reasonable to suggest these young people will have a better chance of caring for themselves to the maximum extent following graduation from high school. Based on his experiences with such a high school-based initiative, Liipfert (2010 argues that, "The [special needs] children will perhaps never be capable of living without any support system, but can hold jobs and can live with less supervision than many of their parents could ever have imagined. States benefit as well because programs help graduates live more independently with less need for state-funded support in the future" (p. 61).

The growing numbers of students with learning disabilities entering college in the United States is the result, in part, of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. According to Levinson and Ohler (1999), "This Act required colleges receiving federal funds to provide services and programming to individuals with disabilities. Postsecondary institutions are required by law to make reasonable accommodations to ensure the success of students with disabilities, including those with learning disabilities" (p. 62). Many young people with learning disabilities are graduating from high school having satisfied the academic requirements, though, only to find themselves without the daily living skills they need to navigate real-world settings. According to Levinson and Ohler (1999), "Increasing numbers of persons with learning disabilities who are now entering college have been found to have special needs related to both academic survival and career development that are often unrecognized and unmet" (p. 62). Indeed, Snyder (2002) emphasizes that for special needs students, "Post-school outcomes are poor; their lives are marked by a lack of independence and empowerment. A major goal of special education is to develop successful models to promote individual independence and empowerment for students" (p. 341).

The full inclusion of special needs learners in the general social, educational and occupational contexts of the mainstream student population represents a worthwhile goal as well as the optimal approach for gaining academic skills. Indeed, this issue remains a hot topic among many educators and policymakers alike. As Hughes, Saumell and Sinagub (2007) point out, "Discussions about where students with disabilities should be instructed have received more attention and generated more controversy than any other issue concerning the education of students with disabilities, including how or what these students should be taught" (p. 25). The research to date provides growing evidence of the need to integrate young learners who are physically, emotionally or learning disabled into full inclusion schools. This trend has been overwhelmingly positive, with legal, economic and educational strategies combining to provide an effective and productive shift in the manner in which educators contend with the specialized educational needs of special need students. The inclusive practices mandated by law require that educational institutions are delivered in a fashion to accommodate the needs of special needs students to fully assimilate into non-disabled population classroom settings.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to deliver a critical review of the relevant peer-reviewed and scholarly literature concerning full inclusive practices in schools and the extent to which these school-based programs help prepare special needs students for life after graduation.

Research Question

The overarching research question that guided this study was, "How does the No child Left Behind Act affect special education students after graduation?"

Definitions

The definitions used in this study are set forth in Table 1 below.

Table 1

Definitions of terms used in the study

Term or acronym

Definition

Full inclusion

Full inclusion means that all students, irrespective of disabling condition or severity, will be in a regular classroom/program full time. All services must be taken to the child in that setting (Special education inclusion, 2012).

IDEA

This acronym stands for the "Individuals with Disabilities Education Act" (Linn, 2011).

Inclusion

According to Tilson and Rose (2003), "Inclusion refers to the opportunity for persons with a disability to participate fully in all the educational, employment, consumer, recreational, community and domestic activities that typify everyday society" (p. 1).

IEP

This acronym means "individualized education program" (Tilson & Rose, 2003).

Mainstream

This is a synonym for inclusion (Tilson & Rose, 2003).

NCLB

This acronym means the "No Child Left Behind Act of 2001" (Santoli & Sachs, 2011).

Special educator

These are educators who help special needs learners with individual learning disabilities pursue the attainment of educational proficiency comparable to that of mainstream population students (Jung, 2007).

Special needs students

These are young people who require modifications, accommodations, personalized assistance, or other support services to succeed in their educational programs (Nichter & Edmonson, 2005, p. 51).

Limitations

The primary limitation of this study relates to the quality and quantity of the data that was used and the resources that were consulted. The overwhelming majority of the studies to date have been conducted from the perspective of educators and to a lesser extent parents, but there is a dearth of research concerning how young special needs learners feel about full inclusive practices and their preferences for learning, meaning that the findings that emerged from this study may not be generalizable beyond the conclusion drawn herein. According to Hughes et al. (2007), "Few studies have examined students' perceptions and preferences toward learning in general, and even fewer studies have specifically investigated students' perceptions toward their special education service delivery model" (p. 25). Therefore, the findings that resulted from this study are limited to educator and policymaker views concerning the desirability of full inclusive practices and do not reflect the views of learning disabled students themselves.

Chapter 2:

Review of the Literature

Background and Overview

One of the primary goals of special education is to formulate evidence-based models that can facilitate independence and empowerment for learning disabled students (Snyder, 2002). According to Snyder, "For students with disabilities, many of life's daily decisions (e.g., preferred attire, recreational activities) and long-term life decisions (e.g., job choice, educational focus, recreation and leisure activities, future living arrangements) are made by people other than themselves" (2002, p. 342). These tendencies also hold true throughout the high school experience, including the junior and senior years where substantive progress is expected. In this regard, Snyder adds that, "During their final school years, many students with disabilities remain dependent upon teachers, support staff, and parents to make their decisions, evaluate their performance, and make needed connections to post-school services. All people, regardless of disability, should participate to the greatest extent possible in the decisions that enable increased control over their lives" (2002, p. 342). Despite significant progress in integrating special need students into full inclusive classrooms, there are some constraints to progress that remain firmly in place. For instance, Murry (2001) reports that, "Developments in special education over the last two decades have had an impact on the role of special education teachers. There is a growing need for improved collaboration between general and special educators, an area that has been recognized as the key barrier to improved delivery of services for students with special needs in mainstream settings" (p. 2).

Besides additional training, classroom teachers also need guidance concerning what life skills special needs learners will require after high school, a need that is frequently overlooked in inclusive settings that focus on academic achievement to the exclusion of these life skills. Moreover, busy educators who are already faced with overcrowded classrooms may lack the time and expertise needed to coordinate the resources needed for post-high school living needs. In this regard, Jung (2007) emphasizes that, "A number of variables can affect the interaction between teachers and students with disabilities. These can include the amount of collaboration time given to special education and general education teachers, mentoring, better evaluation procedures for newly hired staff, individual strengths and needs, and resources available to general education teachers" (p. 106).

Moreover, despite the benefits that can accrue for learning disabled students in full inclusive settings, critics of mainstreaming argue that the presence of these students can adversely affect the learning environment for all students. For example, Topping and Maloney (2005) emphasize that, "The biggest increase in mainstreaming has actually occurred for children with learning difficulties. However, teachers tend to express greatest concern about pupils with emotional and behavior difficulties - perhaps because such children are perceived as most likely to damage the education of their classmates as well as being most stressful for the teacher" (p. 6).

Studies of Post-High School Training for Special Needs Students

Although a consistent theme that runs through the relevant literature concerning the post-high school life skill needs of special needs students is the paucity of relevant and timely research in this area. Despite this constraint, there have been some efforts to address this gap and these studies are described below.

Purpose of study

The purpose of a study by Liipfert (2010) was to report the results of a program dedicated to helping young special needs learners become as independent as possible through life skills training in the Piedmont Triad region of North Carolina.

Population used in study

The "Beyond Academics" program is funded through a combination of federal grants and state resources, but there are 10 applicants for every available space and the program currently serves 24 students (Liipfert, 2010).

Detail of method used in study

The author is a member of the Special Needs Alliance in North Carolina who used a literature review and empirical observations of the "Beyond Academics" program to report the results to date. The program has demonstrated efficacy in helping special needs students live independently after graduation from high school is the "Beyond Academics" initiative used in North Carolina where high schools partner with local universities to provide special needs high school students with the life skills they need in real-world settings after graduation. According to Liipfert, "The first two years include classes to develop independent living skills, sometimes taught on an individual basis, and including classes with typical college students. Students learn tasks such as how to cook and clean and to balance a checkbook" (p. 61). Originally a 2-year program, Beyond Academics has since expanded to a 4-year program that addresses various aspects of special needs students' daily living needs, including socialization. In this regard, Liipfert adds that, "Being in a college environment, they learn how to interact in social relationships and even how to go on a date. Students learn self-advocacy skills, including how to vote and how to deal with issues with the landlord" (p. 62). Nondisabled peers are also included in the program's offerings: "Some of their coursework on self-advocacy includes classes with typical college students" (Liipfert, 2010, p. 62).

Once these basic needs are addressed, the program's content focuses on helping these young people secure meaningful employment. According to Liipfert, "The last two years become more geared toward working experiences. Students seek employment based on their interests and skills and can apply these experiences in finding permanent work after graduation" (2010, p. 62). The author concedes that, "The children will perhaps never be capable of living without any support system, but can hold jobs and can live with less supervision than many of their parents could ever have imagined" (Liipfert, 2010, p. 62).

Strengths and limitations of the study

The major strength of the Liipfert (2010) study was also its primary limitation. With just 24 active participants and 10 more lined up to get in, the "Beyond Academics" program provides the intensive, individualized assistance these young people need to become as independent as possible post-high school, but the small number of participants to date restricts the generalizability of these findings to other similarly situated populations.

Purpose of Study

The purpose of a study by Kaiser and Abell (1999) was to report the results of the Student Transition Enhancement Project, an intervention designed to address the lack of specialized programs that address the post-high school needs of special education students. The study reports the effectiveness of an approach used by the Ohio Valley Educational Cooperative known as the Student Transition Enhancement Project, or "STEP." According to Kaiser and Abell, "The STEP Project resulted from a 3-year state grant by the Ohio Valley Educational Cooperative that allowed special educators from 11 rural school districts to develop a curriculum to improve student transition from high school special education programs into the workforce" (1999, p. 71).

Population used in study

The population of interest in the Kaiser and Abell (1999) study consisted of an unnamed number of students in Ohio.

Detail of method used in study

The author used a review of the literature method to describe the need for the intervention and to develop the background of the program developed in response to these needs. The program focused on four main post-high school components for special needs students:

1. Daily Living: basic personal wellness with sections on hygiene, community resources, and finances;

2. Personal/Social: interpersonal communication and conflict-resolution activities;

3. Occupational Exploration: job and career guidance information; and,

4. Community and Federal Program Awareness: state and federal assistance programs that students may find useful after they leave school.

At the time of writing, the program had been in operation for 3 years and the authors report positive results with a majority of the participants. According to Kaiser and Abell, "This curriculum will help retain students with mild disabilities in school and equip them with the skills they will need to conduct their lives more independently, productively and enjoyably-in the communities in which they live" (p. 72).

Strengths and limitations of the study

The primary strength of the Kaiser and Abell (1999) study was the comprehensiveness of the intervention provided. For example, all participants in the Student Transition Enhancement Project received individualized services preparatory to their seeking meaningful employment as well as follow-up services as needed to help ensure their successful transition. The main limitation noted in the study was the absence of the numbers of participants who have successfully completed the program notwithstanding the authors' note that most have reported positive results.

Purpose of study

The purpose of a study by Santoli and Sachs (2011) was to present the results of a survey concerning educator attitudes regarding inclusion. The study was conducted in a middle school in a large school district in the Southeast and was administered prior to the beginning of the school year, and immediately prior to the implementation of full inclusion.

Population used in study

The populated used in the Santoli and Sachs (2011) study consisted of 56 general and special educators, paraprofessionals, and administrators from an urban middle school in the southeastern United States.

Detail of method used in study

The authors used a custom survey instrument to collect the data for this study. The researchers determined that a majority (98.2%) of the respondents in this study was willing to make needed instructional adaptations for their students with disabilities; however, more than three-quarters of the respondents (76.8%) did not believe that most students with disabilities could be educated in regular education classroom settings.

Strengths and limitations of the study

The major strength of this study was its focus on educator perspectives regarding full inclusive practices, a focus that is notably absent from the relevant literature. The primary limitation of this study was the relatively small number (56) of respondents who participated and the fact that they were all from the same middle school. These limitations suggest the findings of this study may not be generalizable beyond this setting.

Purpose of study

The purpose of a study by Baugher and Nichols (2008) was to report the results of an initiative (a "transition fair") that was designed to facilitate the transition post-high school for special needs students in a rural region of the United States.

Population used in study

The population of interest in this study consisted of an unnamed number of special needs students attending school in a rural Arkansas area identified as the "Delta" (p. 213). All 435 of the student population in this study were included in the study, including an unspecified number of special needs students; however, the authors imply that the number is sufficiently large to justify the resources being expended on the project.

Detail of method used in study

The method used in this study was a "transition fair" that brought together a social services agency, employers and special needs students. Preparatory to conducting the event, the researchers addressing several basic concerns and considerations, as follows:

1. Determined the grade levels of students with disabilities who would be involved in the transition fair.

2. Determined the students who would be involved in the fair that did not receive special education services.

3. Determined response items that should be placed on a student questionnaire which would ensure the desired types of employment would be represented in the fair.

4. Determined the social service agencies that should be invited to participate in the fair.

5. Determined how the fair should be marketed to potential employers to ensure their participation and also determined employers who should not be invited to participate.

6. Discussed how the fair would be incorporated into a child's IEP and transition plan.

Although four social agencies providing services to special needs students were invited to participate, only one responded (the authors note their disappointment and alarm); however, of the 45 employers contacted (within a 25-mile radius of the fair), 31 agreed to participate. The larger response rate from the private sector was attributed to the fact that they agreed that both special learning and non-disabled students should attend the transition fair, otherwise it might appear that these employers were interested only in recruiting special needs students. According to the researchers, "Planners determined that the fair needed to include students with and without disabilities in order for prospective employers to participate due to a concern that employers would not participate if they perceived that the transition fair was solely to discuss future employment only with students from special education programs" (p. 218).

Despite the healthier response rate compared to the social services agencies contacted to participate in the transition fair, the authors also note their disappointment at the apparent lack of interest from the employers that did not agree to attend. According to Braugher and Nichols, "These employers operated plants that employed a large workforce with work multiple shifts. Several of the school district's patrons were employed in these plants and the plants which were seen as viable employment providers for both students with and without disabilities" (p. 218).

The 2-hour transition fair was organized so that prospective employers could first spend time (the first 30 minutes) with the special needs students to describe their respective organizations and discuss potential employment opportunities in the Delta (which were rare in this rural area) as well as elsewhere. After the initial 30-minute allotment, the doors were opened for all students for a specific reason. According to the authors, "After the initial thirty minutes of the fair was completed, general education students from both the eleventh and twelfth grade classes would be invited to participate. This was done to ensure that students with disabilities received the primary attention of employers without having to compete with their non-disabled peers for interaction time" (p. 218).

The special needs student rotated between prospective employers during the 30-minute session, and each had a list of question that they wanted to ask. In some cases, these interactions proceeded smoothly while in others the special needs students required some assistance from their adults who were accompanying them. According to the authors, "By the end of the thirty-minute segment of the fair that was dedicated solely to the students with disabilities, each had visited with at least the three of the employers listed on the pre-fair list while some had visited more" (p. 218).

A significant number of special needs students remained for the rest of the 1-1/2 fair, interacting with their non-disabled peers. The outcome of the transition fair was judged a success by consensus. In this regard, Braugher and Nichols conclude that, "Surveyed stakeholders indicated that the transition fair was a success. Remarks by adults who were directly involved or were casual observers were positive. Casual observers from the community were especially complimentary of the event noting that nothing had been done like this in the school's history" (p. 218). The event was also featured in a local newspaper.

Strengths and limitations of the study

The major limitation of this study related to the lack of participation by the social services agencies contacted to participate, the significant percentage of prospective employers that failed to respond, as well as an apparent lack of interest on the part of the parents of the special needs students that were involved in the transition fair. Indeed, the authors report that none of the special needs students' parents even attended the event although they were all invited, and it was specifically organized so that parents could participate in the interview process with prospective employers. The absent parents were required to be replaced with "accompanying adults" (p. 218).

Purpose of study

The initial purpose of a study by Nichter and Edmonson (2005) was seven-fold as follows:

1. Identify schools with a designated special education counselor,

2. Identify the services provided for special education students,

3. Determine counselors' perception of preparedness to provide counseling services for special education students,

4. Rank the experiences in order of greatest contribution toward preparation for counseling special education students,

5. Determine what could help counselors feel better prepared to provide counseling services to special education students,

6. Determine ideas for counselor educators to better prepare counselors to provide services for special education students, and

7. Determine ideas for school administrators that would help school counselors provide counseling for special education students (p. 50).

Based on the foregoing findings, the next purposes of the study were:

1. To identify services general education counselors currently provide special education students;

2. To assess participants' perception of preparedness to counsel special needs students;

3. To identify experiences contributing to the level of preparedness; and,

4. To elicit participants' suggestions for how counselor educators can better prepare school counselors to serve special education students and how school administrators can provide support for counseling this population of students.

Population used in study

The population of interest in this study consisted of 66 school counselors from all grade levels selected from Texas public schools in the Region VI Educational Service Center service area. The researchers mailed 100 surveys and 66 were returned in time for inclusion in the data analysis, representing a return rate of 66%. The demographics of the respondents were as follows:

1. Fifty-nine (89%) of the participants were female and seven (11%) were male.

2. Twenty-four (36%) of the participants were counselors at the elementary level, 20 (30%) were counselors at the middle school level, and 17 (26%) were counselors at the high school level.

3. Three (4%) participants listed their school level as K-12 and 2 (3%) listed their school level as all levels.

4. Forty-four of the 66 respondents (67%) did not have a designated special education counselor on their school campus.

5. Twenty (30%) respondents have a designated special education counselor on their campus.

6. Two respondents offered no response to the survey question requesting this information.

Detail of method used in study

The researchers gathered data concerning school districts and the names of school counselor contained in the 2004-2005 Regional Directory and School Calendar using a custom survey instrument (they provide a copy of the instrument at an appendix). The results of the survey showed that 61 (or 92%) of the respondents identified individual counseling and teacher consultation as the two most frequent services provided to special education needs students. Just over half (36 or 55%) of the respondents reported that they were prepared to provide counseling services to special education students. Twenty-one (or 31%) of the respondents reported that the most important source of preparation for them was teaching experience, and undergraduate coursework was deemed the least important. Finally, the analysis of the open-ended questions indicated that more training was needed by the respondents, especially in the area of (a) special education laws and legal issues, (b) disabilities characteristics, (c) techniques for working with special education populations, and (d) medications and side effects.

Strengths and limitations of the study

The major limitation identified in this study was the lack of established validity and reliability for the custom survey instruments used by the researchers. For instance, according to Nichter and Edmonson, "The survey was designed specifically for this project and has not been previously used. Therefore, reliability and validity data for the survey instrument were not available" (p. 51). In addition, the researchers add that they "could not control for participants accuracy with regard to their perceptions" (p. 52). Finally, notwithstanding their respectable return rate of 66% for their custom survey instrument, the researchers suggest the relatively small number of total respondents limits the generalizability of their findings.

Purpose of study

Citing the paucity of timely and relevant research in their area of interest, Hughes, Tejero and Saumell (2007) report that the purpose of this study was "to better understand both students' perceptions of, and preferences for service delivery models, as well as students' perceptions of their classmates who receive such specialized instruction" (p. 25).

Population used in study

The population of interest in this study consisted of 167 elementary school students (123 general education students and 44 special needs students attending grades 2 through 5. The students were recruited from three elementary schools located in a large, urban school district in the southeastern United States; two of the schools featured an inclusive special education model while the third provided a resource room mode wherein special needs students received services from a special education teacher in a resource room for ninety minutes to two hours daily separate from the rest of the school.

Detail of method used in study

The researchers used an interview method using a survey instrument with known validity and reliability, the Student Perceptions of Service Delivery Model Questionnaire, to collect data from the 167 elementary school students described above. The survey instrument contained both Likert-scaled as well as open-ended questions concerning:

1. Their feelings about their general education teacher and classmates,

2. How the general education teacher helps students who do not learn as quickly as others,

3. How they would feel about leaving the classroom to receive extra help, and

4. How they would feel about having another teacher come into the classroom to provide extra help.

The interviewers were trained in the administration of the survey instrument to special needs students and each interview required approximately 15 minutes. Medians, means, and standard deviations for all items were reported and open-ended comments were coded for themes and confirmed using inter-rater reliability checks. The results of the data analysis indicated that special needs students who took part in the inclusion general education service delivery model experienced positive perceptions concerning their general education teachers and non-disabled peers. General education students as well as special needs students, though, showed more positive feelings concerning their peers compared to special needs and general education peers in the resource room model, a perception that was consistent for all grade levels.

Strengths and limitations of the study

This study had several strengths, including the use of a survey instrument with demonstrated validity and reliability, the fact that all interviewers were trained prior to the administration of the survey to the students and the use of inter-rater reliability to code the primary themes that emerged from the open-ended questions. The main limitation of this study was the relatively small number of respondents involved which the researchers indicate may limit the generalizability of their findings.

Purpose of study

The purpose of a study by Scruggs, Mastropieri and McDuffie (2007) was to deliver the results of a meta-synthesis of studies concerning co-teaching in inclusive classrooms using the following questions as a framework for analysis:

1. How is co-teaching being implemented?

2. What are perceptions of teachers?

3. What problems are encountered?

4. What are the benefits perceived to be?

5. What factors are needed to ensure success of co-teaching?

Population used in study

The authors drew on 32 juried qualitative investigations to develop their findings. The studies were selected from reliable online databases such as PsychINFO, ERIC, Dissertation Abstracts, and Digital Dissertations using various permutations of key words concerning inclusive practices and co-teaching as their search terms.

Detail of method used in study

Based on their meta-synthesis of the 32 peer-reviewed qualitative studies, the researchers determined that special education teachers played a subordinate role and techniques such as peer mediation, strategy instruction, mnemonics, and training of study skills, self-advocacy skills, and self-monitoring were observed only infrequently. Next, the researchers examined co-teaching alternatives and other common themes in the selected studies by reading and rereading them to identify recurring metaphors and issues. These common themes were evaluated using a second rater to establish inter-rater reliability. These alternatives are typically used to provide support for increasing the inclusion of special needs students. The researchers also report that several alternative approaches were identified for co-teaching:

1. One teach, one assist (or, "drift"), where one teacher (usually, the general education teacher) assumes teaching responsibilities, and the special education teacher provides individual support as needed;

2. Station teaching, where various learning stations are created, and the co-teachers provide individual support at the different stations;

3. Parallel teaching, where teachers teach the same or similar content in different classroom groupings;

4. Alternative teaching, where one teacher may take a smaller group of students to a different location for a limited period of time for specialized instruction; and,

5. Team teaching (or interactive teaching), where both co-teachers share teaching responsibilities equally and are equally involved in leading instructional activities.

Strengths and limitations of the study

The researchers note that although quantitative studies remain the gold standard for social researchers, qualitative meta-analyses are becoming increasingly common as increasing numbers of relevant studies are published in online research databases.

Chapter 3: Methodology

Description of the Study Approach

This study used a qualitative meta-analysis to formulate an answer to the study's guiding research question, "How does the No child Left Behind Act affect special education students after graduation?" The use of a qualitative meta-analysis for studies of this type is congruent with the guidance provided by numerous social researchers who cite the advantages of synthesizing the results of disparate types of studies into a coherent whole. To date, the qualitative meta-analysis approach has provided researchers with the ability to arrive at conclusions that are regarded as being more accurate, credible and trustworthy than could be accomplished using a single study or a narrative analysis (Dimatteo & Rosenthal, 2001). According to these authors, "Inquiries often demand immediate answers to complex and multifaceted questions in which existing data may be quite variable and steps depend upon reconciliation of disparate findings" (Dimatteo & Rosenthal, 2001, p. 59). Likewise, other authorities emphasize that a meta-analysis can help synthesize a wide range of findings from different sources to develop fresh insights and new observations that might otherwise go undiscerned. In this regard, Baskin and Enright report that, "Meta-analysis is a popular vehicle of synthesizing results across multiple studies" (p. 79). Similarly, Gliner and Morgan (2000) note that, "Meta-analysis allows researchers to combine the results from different studies performed in the same area of interest" (p. 20). Although every meta-analyses will be different in some fashion, the objective of this type of meta-analysis is to develop improved insights and a better understanding of the modeled phenomenon by comparing different empirical studies (Vanhonacker, 1996).