Inclusion and Mainstreaming in Vocational Education

Introduction: Legislative Foundations of Inclusion and Mainstreaming

Inclusion and mainstreaming have been catch phrases in education for nearly 40 years. Beginning in the 1970s, a series of court cases established that children with disabilities deserved equal education alongside their peers, and eventually affirmed that such children were entitled to the least restrictive environment possible. Prior to this period, most children with even mild disabilities were either segregated in special classrooms or offered no formal education at all. As Wilcox and Wigle (1997) note, "Finally, P.L. 94-142 was passed (1975) which mandated that children with special education needs are to be educated in the least restrictive environment" (p. 371).

Mainstreaming is the term used to describe the trend of placing children with disabilities in regular classrooms. Inclusion goes further, referring not only to placement in the regular classroom but also to the use of the same curriculum wherever possible. As Proctor and Baker (1995) explain, "Rather than 'forcing' students with disabilities into an existing mainstream that is structured to teach everyone the same thing in the same way for the same amount of time, inclusion presumes a restructuring to accommodate individual student differences" (p. 224). Sometimes called full inclusion, this goal has proven difficult to achieve, and most schools and districts have opted instead for progressive inclusion — gradually incorporating students into the general curriculum while supporting them through Individual Learning Plans (ILPs).

Inclusion and Mainstreaming in Vocational Schools

In general education environments, vocational classes have historically served as a common mainstreaming pathway for students with disabilities. These programs often included general life skills courses teaching students how to function independently. Some programs also offered job coaching, with the intention of preparing students who were able to pursue further education in postsecondary vocational settings at the college level (Halpern, Yovanoff, Doren, & Benz, 1995, p. 151). Historically, however, the vocational setting for students with disabilities has operated as a largely separate system — one that may draw on general course materials but is primarily grounded in real work experience appropriate to each individual's skill set.

Halpern et al. (1995) describe the range of postsecondary options in this way:

Several different pathways exist, including four-year colleges, community colleges, and private vocational schools that offer certificates in a particular job area, such as hairdressing or serving as a nurse's aide. Community colleges are also themselves rather complex, offering a wide array of programs, including preparation for transfer to a four-year college, specific vocational training accompanied by a degree or certificate, and many adult education courses that are not degree oriented and can address either vocational or non-vocational content. At least in theory, all these options are also available to students with disabilities. In addition, students with disabilities sometimes have access to postsecondary education or training opportunities specifically designed for people with disabilities, such as job training programs supported by a vocational rehabilitation agency. (p. 151)

For the most part, transitional access to vocational training has not been fully inclusive, and mainstreaming remains uncommon except for students with the least severe disabilities. One reason is that even publicly funded institutions charge for their services, and the general student population often does not welcome students with substantial disabilities into mainstream classes. Additionally, it has proven difficult for instructors to develop curricula that are inclusive of students with severe learning disabilities, even though most institutions nominally offer accommodations. As Halpern et al. (1995) found, "inclusive instruction…did not contribute to participation in postsecondary education…the mere presence of high school students with disabilities in integrated classroom settings had no apparent impact on the probability of their participation in postsecondary education" (p. 151).

Teacher and Curriculum Initiatives for Inclusive Education

The inclusion of ADHD in this discussion raises the additional challenge of behavioral difficulties that can arise when students with the disorder struggle to engage with instructional material. Historically, over-diagnosis and over-medication have been the default response to these challenges, even in cases where ADHD may not be the appropriate diagnosis. The growing number of adults who identify as having ADHD is beginning to offer the education system greater insight into the thinking patterns and needs of this population, but progress remains slow (Neven, Godber, & Anderson, 2002, p. 5).

Teacher and curriculum initiatives are essential for achieving meaningful inclusion — whether full or progressive. Rather than simply placing students with special needs into existing classrooms with current tools and materials, schools must provide teachers with the support and resources necessary to help all students demonstrate learning. One key proposal is that curriculum be driven by individual goals rather than by fixed time schedules, as is currently the norm in most schools. Goal-driven, individualized learning allows for multi-age and multi-ability instruction, freeing students from the pressure of uniform testing deadlines (Proctor & Baker, 1995, p. 224).

Proctor and Baker also advocate for the involvement of professional development schools in inclusion efforts, including the creation of a specialist team — comparable to a SWAT team — composed of educators with diverse levels of experience. Such teams would support individual classroom instructors by providing specialized services and additional resources to address a diverse student population. Equally important is integrating special education content into standard teacher preparation programs, so that educators are better equipped both academically and psychologically to approach inclusion with confidence rather than apprehension. As Proctor and Baker (1995) note, "educators must recognize that students will master the important facts, skills, concepts and strategies at different times" (p. 224), and must not fear this outcome.

More holistic and constructivist models have also been proposed, including whole language instruction and outcomes-based assessment, in which learning is understood as the construction of meaning by the learner within the context of their existing knowledge (Poplin & Stone, 1992; Tarver, 1992, as cited in Putnam, Spiegel, & Bruininks, 1995). Cooperative learning and democratic disciplinary approaches offer alternatives or supplements to individualistic instruction and applied behavior management. Facilitated communication has been reported to produce dramatic breakthroughs for some students with autism (Biklen & Schubert, 1991; Putnam, 1994, as cited in Putnam, Spiegel, & Bruininks, 1995), though its efficacy remains contested among professionals in the field.

Conclusion

The vocational shop environment represents one of the most promising models for bridging the gap between classroom-based inclusion efforts and the real demands of the workplace. Giving students the opportunity to develop skills in such an environment can be essential to their future success, providing them with a sense of accomplishment and the individualized attention needed to build confidence for future endeavors — academic or otherwise.