Inclusion: concepts, practices, and implementation

Special Education - Inclusion

The transition from a middle school setting to a high school setting can be daunting for the best of students, but this transition may be particularly problematic for many special needs students that are transitioning from a program of instruction specifically designed for them to a more inclusive regular classroom setting. Unfortunately, there is a growing recognition among educators and policymakers alike that students with special needs are not receiving the level of educational services they need to succeed academically and professionally. Complicating the administration of special needs programs at the outset is a constellation of federal mandates that guide how individualized education programs must be provided for public school students with disabilities today. Advocates of full inclusion programs maintain that anything less is discriminatory and is tantamount to a denial of basic constitutional rights for these special needs students, while others suggest that full inclusionary practices cause more problems than any potential benefits. The good news is that a number of viable approaches to helping special needs students successfully transition from a middle school to a high school regular classroom setting have been identified, and these are discussed further in the review of the literature and the methods, results and discussion chapters. A summary of the research is provided in the concluding chapter, together with implications for high school teachers, parents and students alike.

Chapter 1: Introduction

Statement of the Problem

Purpose of Study

Importance of Study

Scope of Study

Rationale of Study

Overview of Study

Chapter 2: Review of Related Literature

Chapter 3: Methods, Results, Discussion

Chapter 4: Conclusions and Implications

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Review of the Relevant Literature

Background and Overview.

According to Horn and Tynan (2001), before the 1950s, the federal government had not routinely been involved in the education of students with special needs. "A few federal laws had been passed to provide direct educational benefits to persons with disabilities," they advise, "mostly in the form of grants to states for residential asylums for the 'deaf and dumb, and to promote education of the blind.' These laws, however, were in the tradition of providing residential arrangements for persons with serious disabilities, services that had existed since colonial times" (p. 36). During this period, the laws concerning whether students with disabilities should be educated within the public schools was left to the discretion of the states and their local school districts; while some public school districts managed to provide exceptional services to special needs students at this time, it is clear that 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" (Horn & Tynan, 2001, p. 36).

When the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (PL 94-142) (renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1990) was passed in 1975, though, this situation was changed in substantive ways. This federal legislation mandated that students with disabilities receive a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment; an initial evaluation to determine eligibility for services and accommodations; individual education planning; the provision of individualized services; and, procedural safeguards to ensure the active involvement of a child's parents (Horn & Tynan, 2001). The provisions of these acts mandated greater parental participation in educational planning; however, while appearing to be ready to include parents, many educators found themselves confronted with a substantial amount of parental resistance to active participation. In addition, the common parental history of limited participation and the timing and format of teacher-parent meetings made these conferences logistically problematic or intimidating to many parents of special needs students (Fine & Gardner, 1994).

Thereafter during the late 1970s and 1980s, there was a gradual increase in the number of students with minor learning disabilities that were retained in regular public school classrooms (Westwood, 1997). Likewise, there has also been a growing recognition among educators at the primary and secondary level that increased participation by parents was not only desirable, but it was absolutely required in most cases in order to ensure successful outcomes. In the years since, there has been an increasingly aggressive campaign to have students with more significant disabilities to receive their education in regular classroom settings (Westwood, 1997). The extreme proponents of such "full inclusion" approaches maintain that any form of segregation of students with special needs is socially unjust and is tantamount to a denial of their rights to be provided with the same opportunities for the broad range of learning experiences enjoyed by all other students (Westwood, 1997). The advocates of full inclusion argue that students with even the most severe forms of disability can be placed in regular schools and receive any special services they need in that setting (Westwood, 1997).

According to Rasch, Smelter, and Yudewitz (1994), though, "Full inclusion, in which the regular education teacher must learn a monumental number of additional skills in order to deal with both special and regular education students, may be state-of -- the art education for the Nineties -- the 1890s" (p. 35). These authors define inclusion as.".. keeping special education students in regular education classrooms and bringing support services to the child, rather than bringing the child to the support services. In an inclusionary setting, special education teachers work with regular education teachers in regular classrooms" (Rasch et al., 1994, p. 35). The authors use the term, "full inclusion," to refer to the practice of having regular education teachers teach both regular education students and special education students together without the collaboration of a special education teacher; "Those who endorse such full inclusion would extend special training to the regular education staff members" (Rasch et al., 1994, p. 35). While there are a number of constraints to implementing full inclusionary programs, perhaps the most pressing is the need to develop a collaborative environment that takes into account the needs of all of the stakeholders involved: "A school system, through insensitivity to parent and family needs, may institutionalize policies that make it difficult for parents and professionals to work together. Conversely, many parents may not be prepared or motivated for the level of involvement that schools are promoting, or the involved professionals may likewise not fully understand or be personally skilled in the process required to act out a partnership role with families" (Fine & Gardner, 1994, p. 283). Given these enormous challenges, it is important to recognize that there are some alternatives to full inclusion that may offer some advantages. For instance, on the less extreme side of the inclusion debate are those advocates that argue that the needs of students with significant disabilities are best served by retaining the full range of placement options, including special schools and special classes for those requiring them; in these cases, special services should be organized in such a way that students with severe and multiple disabilities can more easily join with mainstream students on a frequent and regular basis (Westwood, 1997).

Complicating the debate is the fact that the current law of the land requires that all children in the United States are entitled to the best quality education possible in the nation's public schools. The debate continues, though, concerning whether special needs and other learning disabled children are best served in a special education environment or an inclusive, or mainstreamed, classroom setting. As noted above, the proponents of inclusion argue that all students tend to benefit from the practice, while critics suggest that these special needs student would best be served by teachers that are specially trained to help them acquire the life skills they will need to succeed and the presence of special needs students in the mainstream classroom detracts from the learning opportunities for other students. Still other educators maintain that a combination of these approaches is most appropriate for both the majority of special needs students and their counterparts in mainstream classrooms.

These issues have assumed greater importance than ever in recent years as well. Indeed, today, teachers across the country are being confronted with a task that is becoming increasingly difficult to accomplish: meeting the educational needs of all students. According to Rapp (2005), "It seems unlikely that this can be accomplished single-handedly through traditional, teacher-centered instruction or through standardization as in the past. Class sizes are increasing, and the backgrounds of the students in those classes are becoming more diverse. The move toward inclusive education, the societal respect for and celebration of diversity, and the recognition of multiple intelligences and learning styles all emphasize the complex heterogeneity of our students" (p. 297). In fact, today, American public schools are attempting to provide quality educational services for a more heterogeneous population than ever before in its history (Mcgregor & Salisbury, 2002). In fact, fully 35% of American schoolchildren are members of minority group; 20% of this country's children live in poverty, and the same proportion of children live in households headed by an immigrant (Klick, 2000). Generally speaking, public school students with some type of learning disability and those considered to be "at risk" of academic failure account for approximately 10% of the school population; however, these special needs students only represent one source of the increasing diversity in today's public school classrooms (Mcgregor & Salisbury, 2002).

In their study, "Thinking of Inclusion for All Special Needs Students: Better Think Again," Rasch and his colleagues (1994) report that, "The political argument in favor of inclusion is based on the assumption that the civil rights of students, as outlined in the 1954 decision handed down in Brown v. Board of Education, which struck down the concept of 'separate but equal,' can also be construed as applying to special education" (p. 36). According to Mcgregor and Salisbury (2002), since then, the 1997 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, P.L. 105-17, 1997), and the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (also known as the "Improving America's Schools Act"; ESEA, P.L. 103-382, 1994), mandate the inclusion of supplementary services and instructional supports in the general education classrooms to provide all students with access to challenging and stimulating learning environments (Mcgregor & Salibury, 2002). In addition, both of these federal laws require the active participation of students served within these programs in all the large-scale assessment activities (Mcgregor & Salibury, 2002).

As a result, one of the greatest anticipated benefits of inclusive educational accountability systems is that administrators and policymakers will have improved access to more comprehensive information so they can form a more accurate picture of how inclusive practices affect student performance (Mcgregor & Salibury, 2002). In this regard, Thurlow, Elliott and Ysseldyke (1998), suggest that improved access to this type of information will also provide educators with opportunities to determine whether the programs already in place are actually helping those special needs students acquire the academic background and life skills they will need to succeed, as well as what impact such inclusive practices have on the other students.

In spite of the increasingly diverse nature of the nation's multicultural schools, the challenge of meeting the needs of diverse groups of students in public schools is not new, but it has come at a time when the public schools are already experiencing a wide range of other severe problems. For example, it has been widely reported for more than three decades now that the quality of public schools in the United States has been on the decline (Klick, 2000). Unfortunately, no matter whether this lack of academic success is measured against the educational systems of other nations or by employers who believe today's graduates do not possess the skills required for even entry-level work, it has become painfully obvious that something is wrong with the current public school system in the United States (Klick, 2000). In response, educators and policymakers at all levels have argued that the problem is largely one of a lack of resources, while a number of taxpayer advocates suggest that simply throwing more money at the problem is not the answer, either.

According to Hilliard and Ortiz (2004), two of the major objectives of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 were to raise standards in U.S. schools and to decrease the achievement gap between those students who traditionally perform well in school and those who traditionally have been considered underachieving; this latter group is generally comprised of students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, students from low-income families, urban students, rural students, and students with disabilities (Hilliard & Ortiz, 2004). In response, the trend towards inclusion has been inexorable and the practice has become the norm rather than the exception in many of the nation's schools, but not everyone is in agreement about just what it means and whether it is even a good approach or not. According to one authority, "Inclusion is coming. More districts around the country are supporting the movement to bring physically challenged students into regular education settings -- but those involved in making inclusion work have their doubts" (the 'inclusion' challenge, 1994, p. 33). Likewise, Heumann (1999) emphasizes that, "All teachers are -- or soon will be -- teaching in classrooms that include students with disabilities. Thus it is becoming increasingly unacceptable to limit the number of teachers in a school who have the skills to teach disabled students to only a few special education teachers" (p. 5). Today, middle school and high school teachers must understand how to best teach all such students how to read, write, communicate, and achieve to the highest educational standards (Heumann, 1999).

Clearly, just as the term "mainstreaming" has largely been replaced by "inclusion," as the practice becomes more accepted and commonplace, there will soon be no need to distinguish the practice from "regular classrooms" since the practice will be virtually ubiquitous: "As inclusion gains greater prominence in education, we will get beyond the necessity of referring to 'inclusive' classrooms as if they were different from 'ordinary' classrooms. In the near future, all classrooms should be inclusive, and we will no longer need the term" (Heumann, 1999, p. 5). Whether the term "mainstreaming" continues to be used by educators and/or policymakers, though, is irrelevant if the current fundamental problems facing middle school and high school teachers in increasingly inclusive settings are not resolved - and soon. Therefore, for the purposes of this discussion on inclusion, all of these disadvantaged or otherwise marginalized students will be considered as special needs students and the problems typically encountered in their introduction into the regular classroom are discussed further below.

Specific Problems Related to Inclusion of Special Needs Students in Regular Education Classrooms.

While every situation is unique, it is reasonable to assert that in almost every case, special education today is more costly than its regular classroom counterpart and in some cases, these special education settings remain ineffective in equipping special needs students with the knowledge and tools they will need to succeed academically and professionally. According to Horn and Tynan (2001), "The elaborate eligibility and classification systems set up in response to well-meaning federal legislation have not translated into improved results for students with special needs. Moreover, by focusing on weaknesses and accommodations, we have given these children unreasonable expectations of how the larger community will respond to their academic weaknesses" (p. 36). The result of the efforts to date have caused many special needs students to fail to attain the skills and knowledge they will need when entering the job market or attending college (Horn & Tynan, 2001).

To overcome these constraints, educators must ensure that their special education initiatives are geared to the original goal of offering an appropriate education for all children, while including as many special needs students into the regular classroom setting as possible to help their transition into the mainstream of American life (Horn & Tynan, 2001). Rather than attempting to develop a one-size-fits-all approach, a better method would be to provide these services to special needs students across the continuum of disabilities that might be adversely affecting a given student's ability to learn in a regular classroom setting. In this regard, Horn and Tynan (2001) recommend that educators take into account the fact that special education in the U.S., as currently constructed, really serves three distinct groups of students as described further below.

Dimensions of Special Needs.

Those with significant physical, cognitive, and sensory handicaps. This group was targeted by the original federal law concerning special needs, and consists of children born with birth defects, serious sensory or physical disabilities, and significant cognitive delays; the vast majority of these children are identified as disabled during infancy and the preschool years, frequently by health-care professionals or early-childhood education specialists, and begin receiving intervention services before they enter elementary school. The authors suggest that these students do not require any further identification process within the schools because their special needs are well documented and to a large extent, their medical, rehabilitation, and educational needs are being addressed. The authors note that this group accounts for less than 10% of all special needs students and less than one percent of all children in public schools and recommend additional funding to ensure appropriate accommodations (e.g., interpreters for the deaf, curb cuts for those in wheelchairs, books written in Braille for the blind, etc.), while including them to the extent possible in regular classroom settings: "To a large extent, this is what special education currently provides these students. Their right to have access to a free and appropriate education must be maintained under any change in the structure of special education" (p. 36).

Those with milder forms of neurological dysfunction such as SLD and ADD. This group comprises the vast majority of special needs students in the nation's high schools; these are students with mild forms of neurological dysfunction, such as mild mental retardation, learning disabilities, and ADD. The authors suggest that there is in fact nothing particularly "special" about the special education most of these students are receiving except their classification as special needs students. Studies have shown that the most effective educational strategies for this group of students are the same ones that help most students in regular education, including frequent individualized monitoring and feedback and intensive direct instruction. "What this group of special-education students needs is not an entirely different teaching approach or set of strategies, but good teaching -- albeit with greater consistency, intensity, and slower pacing than other students are likely to require" (p. 36).

Those with behavioral disorders. This is also a major subgroup of special needs students; students with these types of disorders are typically diagnosed as having either "oppositional defiant disorder" or "conduct disorder," when they are treated in mental health settings. Problems associated with this subgroup of special needs students include refusals to comply with requests, emotional overreaction to situations, and failure to take responsibility for their own actions (Horn & Tynan, 2001). Best practices requires some specific actions on the part of the teachers confronted with such behaviors: "Effective treatment of these disorders involves making these individuals strictly accountable for their behavior, insisting on compliance with requests, and helping them learn to cope calmly with stressful situations" (Horn & Tynan, 2001, p. 36). One of the paradoxical aspects of attempting to provide specialized - which is to say in many cases "dumbed down" expectations - education services for these students is that it is impossible to catch up when students progress slower than their non-special needs counterparts. In this regard, Horn and Tynan emphasize the self-perpetuating nature of special needs services delivered by regular classroom teachers that may not be able to provide the specialized services these students need to overcome their unique learning disabilities:

Unfortunately, once these students are identified as in need of special education, many of the accommodations routinely provided to them -- most especially a lowered standard of acceptable behavior -- actually undermine these desirable goals. This sets up these students for later failure, as they frequently come to expect the same kinds of accommodations outside the school as well. They will be disappointed, since most non-academic spheres -- from job markets to the criminal justice system -- are far less accommodating of disruptive behavior. (Horn & Tynan, 2001, p. 36)

An improved approach to the delivery of special education services would take into account the dramatically differing needs of these subgroups of special education students and would facilitate the development of coping and compensatory strategies (Horn & Tynan, 2001). This approach to differentiating between levels and categories of learning disabilities may appear intuitively appropriate, but Horn and Tynan suggest that educators have been forced to apply the "one-size-fits-all" approach in too many cases because of a lack of specialized assistance from special needs educators or other lack of resources. Indeed, the authors conclude that, "In short, it is time to make special education 'special' once again" (Horn & Tynan, 2001, p. 36).

Making a problem a priority should, by definition, ensure that it gets better but alas, this has not been the case with inclusion of special needs students in many regular classroom settings today. Certainly, complex problems require complex solutions but the efforts to date have not been sufficient to help regular classroom teachers assist special needs students with their unique needs, nor have they addressed the problems inherent in the degradation of the overall learning environment for non-special needs students. There has also been a fundamental lack of guidance concerning how best to help these special needs students make the transition from one learning environment to another. In this regard, Hoover and Patton (2005) point out that, "Inclusion efforts to meet diverse needs have challenged both special and inclusive educators to modify curriculum and differentiate classroom instruction" (p. 231).

Furthermore, given the across-the-board decline in academic performance in the nation's schools that have used mainstreaming in recent years, it is little wonder that there has been so much controversy over this practice. For example, in her essay, "Attitudes of Elementary School Principals toward the Inclusion of Students with Disabilities," Praisner (2003) reports that over the last 20 years or so, the inclusion of disabled students in the general education has become a critical part of the reform effort to improve the delivery of services to these students. "In an inclusive school," she says, "general education does not relinquish responsibility for students with special needs, but instead, works cooperatively with special education to provide a quality program for all students" (p. 135). Not surprisingly, this alternative approach to providing disadvantaged students with improved opportunities for learning has created a wide range of challenges for many education professionals and policaymakers alike today (Praisner, 2003). For instance, an analysis by Dalton, Estrada, Tharp and Yamauchi (2000) indicates 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; children who were speakers of languages other than English were immersed in a new language where they could swim or drown. (p. 4).

Based on current trends and federal mandates, it is reasonable to assert that full inclusion programs will continue to be developed and administered in the nation's school districts; however, a growing number of educators and policymakers alike maintain that full inclusion proponents must address some fundamental instructional challenges before they can be effective and appropriate for a given setting. According to Jackson and Kozlesk (1993), for example, "First, 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).

Instead of replacing one curriculum for another, though, the inclusion of disadvantaged students will require a careful assessment as to whether special education is sufficiently robust to allow these students to gain the life skills they will need to succeed and whether this curriculum fits into the scope and sequence of the general education curriculum (Jackson & Kozleski, 1993). Furthermore, teachers at all levels are going to need the skills, time and resources that are required to provide more personal attention to students with diverse cognitive, social, and behavioral needs in already-crowded classrooms. "These are only a few of the numerous challenges inherent in a full inclusion model," Jackson and Kozleski add (1993, p. 153). Unfortunately, empirical observations suggest that there are other problems involved as well. According to a study by Allan (1999), when special needs students are introduced into regular classroom, a dynamic process is established wherein students and teachers alike became frustrated in their attempts to make the transition because of some unforeseen problems involving expectations and implementation. In this regard, Allan (1999) reports that:

Teachers' practices, framed within a discourse of 'needs,' often challenged the pupils' transgressive practices where they appeared to disrupt the support they were trying to provide. As a consequence, pupils with special needs were forced to repeat acts of transgression in the space between the collusive and coercive markers provided by mainstream pupils and teachers. Thus, inclusion was never completed but was always in process (emphasis added) (p. 3)

Furthermore, mere half-measures to this end will avail the system naught; as one advocate of inclusion emphasizes:

Excellent education is education that is excellent for all. Children come from all racial, ethnic, and national origins and all economic backgrounds. And some children have disabilities. If our education system is to be excellent, it must be based on the premise that every student can learn, and it must encourage every student to have high expectations. If we are to prosper in the future, we cannot afford to waste the potential of any of our young people. America needs us all" (emphasis added) (Heumann, p. 5).

Americans certainly needs everyone, but finding room for them in the nation's public schools is another matter entirely. During the period 1999 to 2000, approximately 6.1 million children ages 3 to 21 years were determined to be eligible for special education services and accommodations across the nation, an increase from 3.7 million in 1976-77 or a whopping 65% (Horn & Tynan, 2001). According to these authors, "The growing number of children in special education is not solely a function of an increase in the overall student population but also of a growth in the proportion of students claiming to be in need of special education. Specifically, 12.8% of the resident student population received special-education services and accommodations in 1997-98, compared to 8.3% of the resident student population in 1976-77" (Horn & Tynan, 2001, p. 36).

Other problems confronting high school teachers in particular is the increasing use of high school exit examinations in many states. In this regard, Mcdermott and Mcdermott (2002) point out that there are three dangers associated with strict requirements for high school exit exams as they apply to special needs students:

Special education students will leave school early, since there is no reward in sight for them if they stay in school. "This danger means that they might remove themselves from school and so miss any chance to achieve the other good outcomes of schooling that are not measured by a test of the three R's" (Mcdermott & Mcdermott, 2002, p. 504);

Teachers in the earlier grades, now required to administer "benchmark examinations," are already feeling the pinch of having to teach to the tests. Many primary school teachers believe that the learning environment for all students will be degraded by the inclusion of students with special needs who could possibly slow down everybody and thus make everybody, including the teachers, look bad. "This is especially the case when there is the possibility that schools and teachers will be graded based on the success -- or lack of same -- of their students on standardized tests" (Mcdermott & Mcdermott, 2002, p. 504).

Tests become the curriculum. The authors suggest it is a just as much a waste of scarce resources to attempt to force special needs students to achieve at a level far beyond their capacity as it is to fail to challenge their abilities with trivial and meaningless exercises (Mcdermott & Mcdermott, 2002).

Although there remains a dearth of timely and relevant studies of the efficacy of inclusive practices in the nation's elementary schools to date, the peer-reviewed studies reviewed in Chapter 3 below serve to shed some insight into how teachers feel about the practice and how effective inclusion has been in specific types of classroom settings.

Chapter Three

Methods, Results, Discussion

To answer the above-stated guiding research questions concerning the impact of transitioning middle school students with special needs into high school inclusion classes, a critical review of the relevant literature was conducted to identify salient issues and points of discussions for further analysis. Thereafter, a comprehensive review of the peer-reviewed and scholarly literature was conducted to identify relevant and current studies on these issues. According to Wood and Ellis (2003), the following outcomes can be accomplished with a well conducted literature review:

It helps describe a topic of interest and refine either research questions or directions in which to look;

It presents a clear description and evaluation of the theories and concepts that have informed research into the topic of interest;

It clarifies the relationship to previous research and highlights where new research may contribute by identifying research possibilities which have been overlooked so far in the literature;

It provides insights into the topic of interest that are both methodological and substantive;

It demonstrates powers of critical analysis by, for instance, exposing taken for granted assumptions underpinning previous research and identifying the possibilities of replacing them with alternative assumptions;

It justifies any new research through a coherent critique of what has gone before and demonstrates why new research is both timely and important.

Both public and university libraries were consulted for this purpose, as well as various premium online research services such as EBSCO, Questia, and others. Studies were located using appropriate search terms such as "special needs," "inclusion," "high school," and serendipitously identified studies were also incorporated where appropriate; the results of this literature review are provided below.

Relevant Inclusion Studies and Findings.

According to Kozleski (1993), by studying inclusionary practices for students with special needs, educators can better understand its potential for supporting the fundamental educational reform initiatives that are so desperately needed by the country's public schools today. To this end, many of the inclusion studies conducted to date have shown inclusion of special needs students into the traditional classroom setting provides significant benefits for all of the students involved (Banks, 1994). By contrast, other researchers suggest that any arbitrary level of inclusion for special needs students that does not take into account the wider range of issues involved is doomed from the outset.

The results of a study by Rasch, Smelter and Yudewitz (1994) found that advocates of full inclusion generally cite three main arguments in support of their position:

That all children learn best in the regular education classroom (which is to say that all children learn best in large groups as opposed to smaller groups);

That the goal of social equity that is met by keeping children mixed with their peers is of greater importance than how much children learn; or,

That pull-out programs are a violation of the civil rights of children with special needs because they segregate them from their peers (p. 36).

While most of the advocates of inclusion rely on the second and third arguments (because the first is spurious on its face), these authors also suggest the other arguments are flawed as well. "To accept the second argument," they suggest, "is to subscribe to the belief that the social aspects of education are more important than the academic aspects. This would appear to be the preferred stance of inclusionists, who often couch their statements in terms of the social benefits enjoyed by both the included students and their peers in regular education" (p. 36).

By any measure, the perceived benefits that can be achieved through inclusion (including role-modeling, increased understanding of children with special needs, a broadened range of social contacts for the child with special needs, and happier children [because they are included]) are worthwhile objectives; however, in some cases, students with special needs may not learn as much in such settings as they would in specially designed classroom environments, just as special needs students may tend to detract from the overall learning environment for their non-special needs peers. In these cases, is it acceptable to relegate the general goals of education to the issue of keeping students "happy"? In this regard, Rasch and his colleagues suggest that if this is the case, teachers should reconsider their roles as educators into one involving an eerie type of "social engineering," something no right-thinking person would likely support. The debate over the third argument in support of full inclusion is complicated by the fact that children with special needs in fact have a constitutional right to be in the regular classroom. "In effect," Rasch et al. advise, "this argument makes the inclusionist stance a political rather than an educational one. If this argument is true, then the IDEA -- which permits alternative placement if that is the least restrictive environment consistent the needs of children -- is in violation of several civil rights statutes, isn't it?" (1994, p. 36).

In fact, the authors reject all three of these arguments as being intellectually indefensible: "The first is clearly educationally spurious and not supported by any research.... We maintain that the primary purpose of education is just that: to educate. While social agendas do exist in schools, these matters must take a back seat to educational agendas" (Rasch et al., 1994, p. 36).

Clearly, then, the level of inclusion will have a profound effect on how and where pupils are able to interact to their mutual benefit while learning what they need to know in the process. Citing a study by Estrada (1997), Dalton et al. (2000) report that there were three distinct patterns of school-level organization in nine culturally and linguistically diverse elementary schools reviewed. At the one extreme, the school pattern of organization caused a complete integration among different language and ethnic groups throughout the school day; at the other extreme, the researcher found there was segregation throughout all or most of the school day. Finally, and not surprisingly, the middle pattern resulted in a moderate amount of contact among different groups (Dalton et al., 2000).

A study by Praisner (2000) was conducted to improve the understanding of elementary school principals' attitudes toward inclusion, the factors related to attitudes, and their potential impact upon the placement of students with disabilities. The survey was comprised of 28 questions and was mailed to 750 randomly selected American elementary principals. Each of the randomly selected respondents received a packet that included a cover letter requesting his or her participation, a survey, a stamped addressed postcard, and a stamped return envelope (Praisner, 2000). A postcard containing identifying information was mailed separately when the survey was completed to permit a second mailing and to ensure that the respondents remained anonymous; the author reports a return rate of 54%, or 405 principals, following the two mailings.

The analysis of the resulting data was accomplished using descriptive statistics, a presentation of the data summaries, and an analysis of the relationships between the study variables; frequency distributions and percentages were also calculated for each variable of the survey (Praisner, 2000). The results of the study showed that principals who had positive experiences with inclusion in the past were more likely to view the practice favorably, and principals assigned less restrictive environments as a result; those principals with students who had serious disabilities such as autism and emotional disturbances were more likely to select more restrictive inclusive settings. According to the author, the findings of this study demonstrated the importance of principals' attitudes in the inclusion of students with disabilities and three basic areas related to attitudes toward inclusion required further research and attention:

Factors related to placement perceptions;

Role of experience with students with disabilities; and,

The types of training used in inclusive practices, with more inclusion training generally being needed for principals (Praisner, 2000).

Yet another recent study by Henricsson and Rydell (2004) examined teacher-student relations and children's self-perception among second- and third-grade pupils who were identified as being problematic in grade one and who were subsequently offered inclusive programs; the authors report that an important issue in the study was the role of actual teacher-student interactions in children's and teachers' perceptions of the relationship and in the child's self-perception (Henricsson & Rydell, 2004). According to the authors, the teacher relations and self-perception of students with externalizing (n = 26) and internalizing behavior problems (n = 25) and a nonproblematic group (n = 44) were prospectively studied (Henricsson & Rydell, 2004).

Those students who exhibited externalizing problems were found to have more conflicts with teachers, as well as more negative attitudes in their teacher relationships and a less positive self-perception, than did their non-disadvantaged peers (Henricsson & Rydell, 2004). According to the authors, "Children with internalizing problems had more dependent and conflictual teacher relationships than did untroubled children. There was little evidence of moderating effects of social competence on the teacher-child relations of children with behavior problems" (p. 112). The results of this study suggest that young students who exhibit externalizing behavior problems represent an at-risk group in the public schools today. "Conflicts and negative teacher behavior in daily interactions," Henricsson and Rydell note, "seem to augment maladaptation, while corrections from teachers do not appear destructive" (p. 113). Consequenlty, this study suggests that a primary goal for school mental health services should be to address this increasingly confrontational atmosphere between teachers and at-risk students.

The main objective of a multivariate, 2-year longitudinal study conducted by Greenberg, Kusche, Nigg and Quamma (1999) was to identify the relationship between a selected subset of commonly used clinical neuropsychological measures and later behavioral adjustment in inclusive elementary school settings. The study participants were regular educational classroom students (n = 235; 49% males) selected from four public schools and one private school in a large metropolitan area (Greenberg et al., 1999). All of the students in the selected classrooms were requested to participate in the study and were retained if written parental consent and the student's verbal assent were secured (about 70% of all available families and students provided such consent) (Greenberg et al., 1999). The sample consisted of 55% Caucasian, 35% African-American, 6% Asian, 3% Filipino, one percent Native American, and two percent other (or unknown); socioeconomic status of the respondents ranged from lower to middle class (Greenberg et al., 1999).

The researchers treated respondent IQ and reading ability as their control variables in the cognitive domain; behavioral outcomes were assessed by using measures of both behavioral problems and social competence. The results of this ambitious 2-year study suggest that those special needs students that were identified as having inadequate reading ability as a result of mild early neuropsychological conditions were at higher risk of experiencing more difficulties in inclusive classroom settings in later years (Greenberg et al., 1999).

A study by Hoover and Patton (2005) found that instructional programs for the nation's approximately 350,000 special education second-language learners in grades K. To 12 must be better aligned to state standards to ensure that all students have equal access to the implementation and assessment of mandated curricula; these authors also emphasize that there is a critical need to use more authentic assessment and to differentiate curriculum to address cultural and linguistic diversity in education for all students today (Hoover & Patton, 2005).

According to these researchers, learning and behavior problems of special needs students may encompass several factors, particularly when the classroom is primarily multicultural, such as different sociolinguistic and cultural background, adjustment to a new sociocultural milieu, the presence of a disability, or a combination of these factors (Hoover & Patton, 20005. These authors add that, "This often results in over identification, under identification, or misidentification for special education. Although specific terminology has varied over the past few decades (e.g., adaptation, differentiation, modification), the underlying issue with special needs is that curriculum must meet their diverse needs in the classroom. This includes curriculum differentiation or adaptation on a regular basis in a variety of educational settings" (p. 232). The authors define differentiated instruction as "using strategies that address student strengths, interests, skills, and readiness in flexible learning environments" and highlight the importance of having a clear understanding of curriculum and its components to best implement differentiated instruction among regular classroom teachers (Hoover & Patton, 2005, p. 233). Based on the findings of their study, Hoover and Patton recommend the curriculum adaptation initiatives shown in Table 1 below to help the transition for both special needs students and their regular classroom teachers.

Table 1.

Curriculum development and adaptations for special needs students:

Development

Implementation/Benchmarks

Development Competencies -- Knowledge of:

Process for curriculum development

Curricular issues and their implications for students with disabilities

Appropriate curriculum by age, grade, and learning strengths ics taught, how they are taught, and the class settings used

Least intrusive modifications

Inter-relatedness of the content, materials, instructional strategies, and instructional settings

Value of culture and language diversity in teaching and learning

Impact of language development on academic and social development

Implementation Competencies -- Application of:

Curricular strategies to match the student's learning styles

Various classroom-based assessments to monitor progress with adaptations

Instructional materials most relevant to the learner

Strategies for differentiating the learning environment to reflect implementation of adaptations, strategies, learning styles, and curricular needs

Modifications to facilitate maintenance and generalization of knowledge and skills

Cognitive learning strategies and study skills and their uses in curriculum to maximize learning

Collaboration skills to facilitate adaptations in the inclusive education setting

Professional advocacy for all students to differentiate curriculum and instruction

Source: Hoover & Patton, 2005.

The authors conclude that based on a from a comprehensive review of the literature and from the consensus of multiple groups of educators and researchers, together with collaboration with the Center for Research on Education Diversity and Excellence (CREDE), have identified five guiding teaching principles that can help special needs students with their transition to the regular classroom.

Learning and development that facilitates joint productive activities among students,

Learners' prior knowledge and learning,

Educational activities within the context of students' prior experiences and skills,

Complex solutions and higher-level thinking, and Ongoing verbal dialogue (Hoover & Patton, 2005).

Each of these teaching principles must be addressed in the overall education of special needs students and specifically within in the curriculum implementation and differentiation to best satisfy their unique educational needs (Hoover & Patton, 2005). To this end, a study by Bullard (2004) of the problems experienced in the transition to a regular classroom environment by special needs students with Asperger syndrome (as) resulted in the following recommendations described in Table 2 below; all or some of these recommendations could be useful for students with other types of special needs as well.

Table 2.

Recommendations for assisting special needs students transition into a regular classroom setting.

Recommendation

Rationale

1. Establish a schedule early on, and be consistent with it.

Children with as find comfort in knowing exactly what will happen next. By providing these students with a very consistent schedule that has little variance, you increase their sense of security, making them better able to function appropriately in the classroom and feel successful about their work.

2. Provide a visual representation of the daily schedule.

Posting a chart in the classroom that displays the schedule and routines for the day only adds to this security by allowing the child to determine what will occur next so that she has a better transition to the next activity.

3. Write notes in advance for the child if the schedule is going to change for a special event.

Let the child know what the change will be and when it will occur because variation in the routine can lead to stress and anxiety, which can cause outbursts and tantrums. Providing advanced notice of alterations in the schedule allows students time to transition and prepare themselves for the change in schedule. In addition, because many children with as tend to process auditory information less efficiently, written notes allow the child another avenue to obtain and understand the message.

4. Provide visual cue cards to use during instruction and teaching.

Due to the difficulty children with as have in processing auditory input, visual cues of what is being taught could help them be more successful in taking in the new information and remembering it. They may still require more time to process all the information; however, by providing instruction both verbally and visually, teachers offer students with as a better opportunity to learn the material.

5. Set clear expectations and boundaries, and post them on the wall.

Here again, providing a visual representation of what is expected so that the child can refer to it as needed provides security and increased opportunities for comprehension of the material, both of which will increase productivity in the classroom.

6. Provide verbal and written instructions for the child.

When giving the class instructions or directions for an assignment or activity, provide written instructions that coincide with your verbal instructions for the child with as. The instructions can be in picture form as well as in words to further aid in comprehension and success.

7. Ask questions to check the child's understanding of the instructions just given, or ask the student to verbalize the instructions back to clarify understanding.

Many times, children with as appear as though they fully comprehend what is being asked of them or what they have read because of their "professor-like" responses to questions; however, these may mask the fact that their comprehension is truly lacking. By probing further, the teacher can ask more pointed questions or have the child verbalize in his or her own words, not repeating the teacher's exact phrases, what is expected.

8. Use a timer to limit perseveration/echolalia/singing.

Establish the routine that as soon as the timer goes off, the child returns to the previous activity. Some children with as will begin to perseverate on objects or ideas or participate in other behaviors that can hinder academic development during the school day. Providing a time limit will help curb such behaviors so that academic progress can be made. Teachers must establish the routine that as soon as the child begins to exhibit a certain inappropriate behavior, the timer is set for a certain amount of time. The child must then be taught that as soon as the timer rings, she must rejoin the rest of the class in the current activity. As time progresses, the time limit should be reduced so that less and less time is actually being spent on such behaviors.

9. Allow the child to earn "free time" in the child's chosen area of interest, such as art or computers, for completing work.

Children with as tend to have an area of intense interest that can consume their conversations and activities. Using this interest to motivate the child can help him learn to be productive in his work while still having time to concentrate on his area of interest.

10. Teach the other children how to interact appropriately with the child with Asperger syndrome in both academic and social settings.

Children can be very supportive and accepting of people with disabilities and differences when they are taught to have such compassion and are shown how to work and play with those individuals. In order for the child with as to be fully accepted in the classroom, the other children in the classroom have to be taught how to interact and accept her. Through role-playing, modeling, and discussions, successful friendships and interactions can take place and even add to the successfulness of inclusion.

11. Model and role-play social situations incorporating appropriate behaviors.

Continually working on general socially accepted behavior helps children with as begin to internalize the behaviors that are expected of them in society. By watching both good and bad examples of behaviors that occur in various social situations, these children can learn to make better choices in their behavior.

12. Teach specific socially appropriate phrases to use in certain situations.

By providing a written script that the child can use in various situations and allowing her to practice her reactions in role-playing activities, you make it more likely for the child to be successful socially. During such social events where the child is expected to act as taught, prompting may be necessary to remind her how to act until she has had ample opportunities to practice the skill in a real-life situation.

13. Provide social skills practice and role-playing for any upcoming social events.

Students with as need to have opportunities to act out certain situations so they can prepare for them socially. Because children with as have poor social judgment, repetitive practice prior to the event will provide them with the knowledge they need to respond appropriately; however, because transfer to different situations may be difficult to achieve, these children must have several opportunities to practice these socially appropriate behaviors in a variety of contexts.

14. Provide a social skills notebook with stories of correct and incorrect social behaviors that the child can use as a guide and reference.

This notebook can be used to prompt the child as to what behaviors are considered appropriate or not appropriate in various social situations. Providing weekly opportunities to read through the stories in a notebook, continuing to stress socially appropriate behaviors, and practicing how to use them in real-life situations will enhance the student's social successfulness.

15. Provide visual cue cards of expected social behaviors, and place them in areas where those behaviors are expected.

Visual cue cards can be used as prompts of expected behaviors of the child in various settings. Through role-playing and modeling, students are first introduced to the behaviors. By including visual cue cards in this role-playing, you help the child with as learn to use those visual cues to help him remember what behavior he should exhibit in the classroom and school environments. However, children must be taught how to use these cards. They cannot simply be posted in the room in hopes that the child will understand what their purpose is. They must be shown how to use them and be allowed time to practice using them.

16. Write down what behavior the child is exhibiting and what behavior he or she should be exhibiting.

For example, "You are drawing on your paper. A better choice would be to work on writing your story." Providing written responses instead of verbal ones may help the child with as better understand what is being asked of her. Connecting these messages to visual pictures may also be beneficial.

17. Have the child complete this same activity with his own behavior.

After the child has been exposed to the method previously described, he can then begin doing it himself with or without prompting. Writing the message to himself and posting it in his notebook or on his desk may help him internalize and remember the expected behavior.

18. Begin discussing with the child how others view his acting out.

Children with as have difficulty understanding how to initiate or maintain social interactions. They do not realize what effect their acting out has on those around them. You should therefore begin discussing these issues with the children early in order to facilitate a better understanding of the social consequences of their behaviors.

19. Provide a safe place in which students can retreat when they become over-stimulated or have difficulty adjusting to a new activity or environment.

This base could occupy a corner of the classroom where the child can be in a dark, quiet place with little or no stimulation in order to calm down. Once the child feels secure and in control of her body, she can join the class again.

20. Be very patient and ready to teach both academic and social skills over and over again.

Children with as need a teacher who will remain calm when the situation escalates. When the teacher begins to get frustrated and tense, the same feelings will tend to heighten in the child; however, dealing calmly with the situation will allow the child to calm down more quickly. In addition, being aware that the child with as will need a great deal of practice and repetition of newly taught skills in order to be successful will help teachers better prepare for what you will need to do to help that child be successful.

Source: Bullard, 2004.

The authors of a case study of an inclusion program in a large, nonselective urban school in Baltimore describe the design and implementation of their "Talent Development Model with Career Academies" at Patterson High School (Balfanz, Jordan, Legters & McPartland (1998). The transition from middle school to high school is a milestone event at this institution, and represents an occasion for award-giving and a formal departure from one academic level to another (Balfanz et al., 1998). The inclusion initiative described by Balfanz and his colleagues was phased in over 2 years in an effort to address the need to help middle school students make the transition from a special education setting to a more inclusive regular classroom setting. According to Balfanz and his colleagues, special education students represented a significant percentage of Patterson's enrollment; not surprisingly, serving these students well was a challenge within the Career Academy model where students spend the last 3 years of high school. "Special needs students were given the choice of a Career Academy, just as any other Patterson student was" (Balfanz et al., 1998, p. 337).

A lack of resources meant that it was not possible to have both separate self-contained classes for some students and an inclusion program for others with sufficient special education faculty at each grade level in each academy program; however, the school district was under active court decree to meet all procedures and requirements for special needs students, and local advocates and the state were actively reviewing Patterson's special education initiatives (Balfanz et al., 1998). The authors report that this high school attempted to use a full inclusion model for all freshmen special education students during its early reform implementation years; however, based on empirical observations and continuing guidance from local and state authorities, they implemented a modified approach (Balfanz et al., 1998). According to these researchers:

Most special education students were properly reviewed and placed in regular classrooms with an additional special education teacher in an approved inclusion program. Others who required self-contained classes were drawn together across Career Academies in classes of court-specified size and levels of instructional support. Staff development was provided on an ongoing basis for regular teachers working together with special education teachers in inclusion classrooms. (Balfanz et al., 1998, p. 346)

The results of this initiative were deemed impressive and satisfied both the court mandated as well as federal requirements for inclusion. According to these researchers, "Teachers who chose the ninth-grade Academy, some of whom came from middle schools, especially enjoyed working with this age group and realized the crucial importance to students of the transition year into high school. They worked as members of one of five ninth-grade teams of four teachers sharing the same students. The ninth-grade staff made good student attendance their top priority" (Balfanz et al., 1998, p. 348).

For students with behavioral disorders, Patterson implemented a "Twilight School" as a viable method of helping many students with very difficult discipline or attendance problems, who almost certainly otherwise would have dropped out, to return to the regular day school, adjust to their high school responsibilities, and progress toward graduation. According to these authors, approximately 100 students, the majority of which were in grade nine, ended up in Patterson's Twilight School for at least part of the school year; during these sessions, students receive regular academic classes for an 18-week term in which they are not allowed to also attend during the day school (Balfanz et al., 1998).

The authors add that:

Of the 100 or so students taking classes in the Twilight School, about 30 earned their way back into the regular program and did well there. The others remained on the rolls at Twilight School or found placements in other district programs in which they could earn a GED credential or combine employment and schooling. One of the students who had been sent to Twilight School and later had become an honor roll student in the Transportation and Engineering Technology Academy recalled how he "got a counselor" in Twilight School who helped him with his 'bad temper' so he 'calmed down' and was later 'getting 100's in Algebra' and other courses. (Balfanz et al., 1998, p. 348) recent study by Marshall, Martin, and Sale (2004) provides some useful insights for high school teachers seeking improved approaches to delivering quality educational services to special needs students and helping them make the transition from a special needs middle school setting to the high school regular classroom setting. According to these researchers, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (Public Law 94-142) established that individualized education programs (IEPs) guide the educational experience of public school students with disabilities (Marshall et al., 2004). This legislation mandated that parents, special education teachers, and administrators attend IEP meetings to develop IEPs for students with disabilities: "For the first time in public school educational history, parents of students with disabilities attained formal educational planning status equal to that of teachers and administrators" (Marshall et al., 2004, p. 285).

As noted above, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act mandated that all students, whenever appropriate, could participate in their IEP meetings and assume an active role in the educational planning process and many authorities suggest that the inclusion of students into the educational decision-making process represents one of the fundamental premises of IDEA. According to Marshall and her associates, though, "Unfortunately, most parents and children with disabilities did not know that students could attend their IEP meeting, even though parents and students who did know overwhelmingly supported the concept. Because of the lack of knowledge, the past practice of not including students in the IEP meeting, and the paucity of literature on student involvement in their IEP process, few students actively participated in their own IEP meetings" (p. 286). The provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act added four innovative transition reforms that were intended to improve post-school outcomes for all students: