Chavet Breslin
A Research Project Presented in Partial Fulfillment
Master of Education
Regis University
ABSTRACT
Over the past decades, there has been a significant shift in the perceived best practices in the field of special education. While the paradigm for special education, at one time, involved removing students with special needs from the classroom to receive specialized instruction from specifically trained practitioners, the social stigma and lack of academic progress pushed administrators to move toward a more inclusive philosophy of education. A meta-synthesis was performed of past quantitative and qualitative studies to determine what type of structure will best benefit special education students, general education students, and teachers.Existing research has shown that both types of inclusion education provide improved learning and outcomes, but direct comparison of the two models has not been given appropriate consideration in the realm of education research. A meta-analysis was performed of past quantitative and qualitative studies to determine what type of structure will best benefit special education students, general education students, and teachers. Fourteen studies were found to match the inclusion criteria, and their varying conclusions regarding effectiveness and efficacy of inclusion education were discussed. Based on the qualitative and quantitative data found in these studies, the work is incomplete and it cannot be said for certain which type of inclusion is better. it can be reasonably inferred that inclusive classrooms provide greater academic outcomes for special needs students than non-inclusive classrooms.
ABSTRACT.2
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION..5
Statement of the Problem5
Background of the Problem6
Purpose of the Project.7
Chapter Summary8
Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW9
Problem/Purpose Restated..9
Goals and Characteristics of Inclusion in Education..9
Attitudes Toward Inclusion..15
Existing inclusion Practices .19
Chapter Summary.24
Chapter 3: METHOD.25
Problem/Purpose Restated25
Target Audience25
Organization of Project.26
Project27
Databases/Search Methods27
Chapter Summary.28
Chapter 4: FINDINGS...30
Introduction30
Studies Synthesized30
Chapter Summary..35
Chapter 5: DISCUSSION..37
Contributions of the Project..37
Limitations38
Preliminary Assessment Results38
Recommendations for Further Research39
Project Summary41
APPENDIX A43
REFERENCES..44
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
Over the past decades, there has been a significant shift in the perceived best practices in the field of special education. While the paradigm for special education, at one time, involved removing students with special needs from the classroom to receive specialized instruction from specifically trained practitioners, the social stigma typical of children with learning disabilities (personified often as physical and emotional discomfort with proximity to special needs individuals) and lack of academic progress pushed administrators to move toward a more inclusive philosophy of education - one in which children with special needs were incorporated into mainstream classrooms along with children without those disabilities. Because a number of researchers (e.g. Hart, 1996; Thomas & Loxley, 2001) found that specialized instruction for certain levels of need had only a negligible effect on students instruction, the momentum turned toward inclusion of special education students in the classroom for as much of the day as possible. In order to accommodate these students and provide the most appropriate and meaningful learning experience, the way in which inclusion efforts must be structured has become a matter of great discussion. Furthermore, the issue of best practices regarding structure of both schools and classrooms, as well as the need for additional training and support for teachers conducting inclusion education has led to the creation of multiple models for practice, whose comparative effectiveness remain largely unknown (Scheyer, Jubala, Bishop & Coots, 2011).
Background of the Problem
Inclusion is defined as a type of special education curriculum in which children with and without special needs are taught in the same classroom, thus 'including' students who would normally be excluded from normal education communities (Campbell, 1997). Federal and international mandates, including the Salamanca statement of the UNESCO World Conference on Special Needs Education, are requiring that children with disabilities be given the least restrictive educational environment possible - inclusion is the primary framework suggested for this mandate (Schwartz et al., 2010). Given the flexible and open-ended nature of inclusion classrooms, there are many different models of inclusion teaching - from co-teaching to closed classrooms and more. Apart from academic studies, the inclusion of disabled students in physical activity courses must also be considered (Doulkeridou, Evaggelinou, & Mouratidou, 2011).
The relatively new nature of inclusion education, and its incorporation into school settings, necessitates further research into the various models of inclusion that have been developed by researchers and implemented in practical settings. These models vary in type between disciplines, but mostly fall into two major groups: full inclusion and partial inclusion. It is a rare practice to consider fully segregated classrooms in inclusion education, as that merely describes traditional/mainstream classrooms; to that end, they are not typically considered part of inclusion education. In full inclusion models for inclusion education, an entire school is completely desegregated, with no separate learning courses for disabled and non-disabled students. Partial inclusion models involve self-contained classrooms in otherwise segregated schools where both disabled and non-disabled students learn; the school has not entirely eliminated special needs-only classes and curricula, but offer individual inclusive courses (Scheyer et al., 1996). These two disciplines are still new in implementation, and so comparison of the effects of these two models in a practical setting has not yet been extensively performed.
Purpose of the Project
The purpose of this project is to investigate which model of inclusion provides a more helpful learning environment for all children (special and non-special needs) involved in inclusion-based classrooms. Currently, there is still considerable question regarding whether or not full inclusion classrooms or partial inclusion classrooms provide the most effective, positive outcomes for both disabled and non-disabled students (Scheyer et al., 2011). The goal of the project is to provide research that furthers literature exploring this area of study, and helps to address questions of comparative value (i.e. which method is more effective and valuable) between full inclusion and partial inclusion classrooms and curricula.
The importance of this problem is evident in the need to determine the particular model for inclusion for ideal outcomes in inclusion education. Research also suggests better social, educational and psychological outcomes in integrated classrooms than in segregated ones. Given federal mandates to involve disabled children in education contexts that have the least level of restriction, determining which model fits those criteria is paramount.
It is my intention to address this problem with a meta-synthesis utilizing both partial inclusion (self-contained classrooms) and full inclusion (schools completely integrated, with no distinction between disabled and non-disabled classes) case studies. The overall goal is to determine whether students learning the same curriculum in a self-contained classroom of an otherwise segregated school have different learning outcomes (as measured through academic achievement) than of a classroom in a fully integrated school. Currently, there are too few full inclusion schools to make a more informed assessment as to whether or not it provides higher quality education than self-contained classrooms; that being said, results and existing research regarding outcomes of what few do exist are promising. To that end, the exploratory research question is as follows:
* Does a classroom teaching curriculum to both disabled and non-disabled students in a full inclusion school produce better academic results than that of a self-contained classroom in an otherwise segregated school?
Chapter Summary
In this chapter, the problem is determining which type of inclusion education environment (self-contained classroom or full inclusion) provides more effective and positive outcomes for both mainstream and disabled students is established. Existing research has shown that both types of inclusion education provide improved learning and outcomes, but direct comparison of the two models has not be given appropriate consideration in the realm of education research. In the following chapter, existing and recent literature in the subjects of inclusion education, full inclusion education, self-contained classroom education and attitudes toward inclusion education as barriers to learning will be reviewed and evaluated.
Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Problem/Purpose Restated
The issue of effective inclusion classroom models and frameworks has been stated; currently, there exists insufficient literature on the effectiveness of partial inclusion classrooms over full inclusion classrooms, and vice versa. This project sought to discover, through meta-synthesis, which model of inclusion provides more effective learning and positive outcomes for both types of students: partial inclusion (e.g. self-contained classrooms) and full inclusion (entire schools integrating disabled and non-disabled students). In order to frame theory and research methods, the following literature review evaluates a) the goals and characteristics of inclusion in education; b) attitudes toward inclusion by educators and community; and c) existing inclusion practices.
Goals and Characteristics of Inclusion in Education
Inclusion as a practice has been established by significant precedent in government law and mandates. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (1990) states that all students with disabilities are afforded the right to "a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)" (Refice, 2006, p. 26). This provides students with exceptionalities and/or disabilities the opportunity to get the appropriate level of education afforded to them. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2002 also perpetuates the need for inclusion of students due to the requirement for students with disabilities to take the same standardized tests as those without disabilities, as per the IDEA. These pieces of legislation necessitate the adjustment of current school curriculum to incorporate inclusion in their classrooms, whether in part or in full, to offer FAPE/LRE to students regardless of disability (Refice, 2006).
In the past, previous attempts to implement the vision for providing students with FAPE/LRE was called 'mainstreaming,' in which children with disabilities were prepared independently to integrate into the classroom. The primary goal of mainstreaming was to prepare disabled students for the expectations that currently existed for the classroom setting. Instead of being fully integrated into the coursework, the disabled student was given lesser expectations to learn, and was virtually treated as a visitor - they still relied primarily on special education courses for the majority of their learning (Allen & Cowdery, 2005). In inclusion, however, students with disabilities are expected to behave as fully-fledged members of the classroom in a general education context. With inclusive education, students are provided the necessary support to participate in the class to a comparable level with the rest of the mainstream students.
The study of teaching and learning requires the acknowledgement of four variables: presage, context, process and product (O'Brien, Kudlacek, & Howe, 2009, p. 46). Presage (teacher) variables include pre-service training of teachers, teacher formative experiences, training experiences, and personality and ethical properties of teachers. Context (student) variables in inclusive education include learner properties, as well as contexts within the school, community and the classroom. Process variables involve the interactions students and teachers have in the course of instruction and learning in a classroom - this variable is of particular interest to the study of inclusive education for students with disabilities (p. 52). Product variables involve the effectiveness of inclusive education; in this context, the effects of these models on both students with disabilities and those without must be evaluated. These variables provide the narrative and theoretical framework by which inclusive education is often studied (O'Brien, Kudlacek & Howe, 2009).
Two overall goals of inclusion are found in the practice: 1) individuals are intended to develop their skills in the most effective setting possible; 2) successful and productive social goals between students with and without disabilities must be met (Campbell, 1997, p. 5). The purpose of these goals is to create an environment in which students with disabilities can be immersed in typical, mainstream socialization contexts, so that they may both learn and behave in ways that will benefit them in post-education settings. These goals are accomplished, for the most part, through two primary models: partial inclusion and full inclusion classrooms (Refice, 2006).
Research suggests that five themes emerge in the creation of inclusion curricula of various kinds in mainstream classes (Sheehy et al., 2009). First, a pedagogic community can arise, in which teachers are part of a teacher community that relies upon the support and communication between teachers in a school, as well as parents and community leaders outside the school. Social engagement is considered to be intrinsic and closely connected to said pedagogy, as evidenced by teacher mediation in the community to create a shared model for learning. This leads to a greater understanding of how the teachers' students learn and interact with each other, which allows instructors to offer flexible ways to represent class activities that accommodate all students. This also creates progressive scaffolding of these classroom activities, allowing for a gradual build of cognitive and social achievements that bring disabled students further into the teaching and learning community. Finally, the classroom authenticity is increased through these activities and the way they are conducted, bringing meaningful improvements and learning to both disabled and non-disabled learners (Sheehy et al., 2009).
Cultural competencies are noted as being significant learning tools to help teachers and fellow non-disabled students overcome prejudices and preconceptions regarding disabled students, so that inclusion classrooms can be more effectively run (Schwartz et al., 2010). Educators must develop cultural competence in order to establish positive and productive behaviors, attitudes and policies that will coalesce into a helpful system for dealing with cross-cultural situations (of which disabled and non-disabled student interactions quality) (p. 110). The Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is meant to provide a philosophy or concept for providing inclusive classrooms with curricula and products that can be used by both disabled and non-disabled students (Schwartz et al., 2010). Its principles include 1) supporting recognition learning and methods of presentation; 2) supporting strategic learning and creating methods of expression; and 3) supporting affective learning and offering methods of engagement toward those ends. The overall goal of the UDL is to provide a plethora of options for learning in inclusive classrooms, removing barriers to learning and expands pedagogical practices.
Research suggests that not all children with learning or developmental disabilities are able to successfully improve in inclusion learning contexts. Jones and Frederickson (2010), in their study of differential profiles of behavioral characteristics predictive of successful inclusion in mainstream education for autistic children, determined several factors that must be included when evaluating children for ideal placement or results in inclusive classroom environments. Students with high levels of peer-rated shyness are found to be more likely to be socially rejected in inclusion classrooms. Social acceptance in inclusion classrooms was linked highly to parent-rated prosocial behavior, as they proved to be successful predictors for students for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and comparison students. As children with ASD have experienced noted impairments and deficits in reciprocal social interaction, efforts to augment awareness of ASD in schools is suggested to improve perceptions of 'shyness' in students.
Diagnosing the needs of special education students in an inclusive environment, especially as it pertains to language learning and phonological assessment, is vital to understanding the childrens’ initial progress in general education environments. P Phonological awareness – or the awareness of sounds in language – is often cited as a major component to developing reading skills, particularly at a young age. Due to the nature of the English language to be primarily based around relationships between graphemes and phonemes, phonological awareness must be strong when developing emergent literacy in order to decide words that are unfamiliar. Emergent literacy is defined as the learning and awareness skills that children acquire before learning to read. These include print knowledge, oral language, and phonological awareness (Burns & Ysseldyke, 2009).
Emergent literacy is important, as it forms the basis for reading skills and phonological awareness, and prepares children for the actual reading experience. With phonological awareness, students recognize that oral language consists of a series of sounds, and they are able to pick up on these sounds and deduce a word or phrase from them. They can then decipher the meaning or intent of the speaker through their understanding of the word. This is one of the cornerstones of emergent literacy, and something that dialogic reading can improve upon if applied to the classroom (Burns & Ysseldyke, 2009).
In order to determine reading fluency and word recognition, more indicators that RAN and phonological assessment tasks must be used. Due to the widespread implementation of No Child Left Behind's progress-monitoring components, in addition to other similar pushes for child performance assessment, the requirement for effective assessments in reading and phonological skills is clear. Reading assessments must be used to measure various curricula, including word identification fluency and nonsense word fluency, particularly in first grade levels (Fuchs, Fuchs & Compton, 2004).
Various assessment reading tasks have been created to address these concerns, most notably the curriculum-based measurement (CBM) passage reading fluency task. In this the teacher uses established methods to find text and reading passages of comparable difficulty, representing material that students should be at the level to read at by the end of their first-grade year, for example (Fuchs, Fuchs & Compton, 2004, p. 8). In this task, every student reads a different passage aloud for one minute, and is then scored on the number of words they correctly read. In essence, the students' performance is gauged through different facets of their reading, including translation of letters into coherent sounded words, accessing lexical representation, relating the meaning of text to prior information, and other related skills. Due to this performance reflecting reading fluency on multiple levels, CBM passage reading fluency tasks are shown to characterize reading development in primary school grades (Fuchs, Fuchs & Compton, 2004).
Inclusion has been shown to effectively address these kinds of deficits, as well as perceived deficits in social and emotional domains. Young children with special needs who are placed in inclusive programs are shown to benefit from the increased level of stimulation and variety of experiences gleaned from exposure to non-disabled students, instead of simply interacting with similarly skill-limited children (Allen & Cowdery, 2005). While special education that segregates a child focuses on deficit models that focus on perceived 'errors' in learning, inclusion encourages curriculum activities that stimulate the strengths of the child. Furthermore, there is the implicit motivation and encouragement by both general education learners and students to improve in one's behavior and grades; by increasing the demand of the environment, more positive outcomes are seen (p. 14). Studies have indicated that systems that emphasize social gains made by disabled students create better outcomes in both social and educational goals than inclusive systems that focus more heavily on academic achievement (Linn, 2011). As a consequence, an emphasis on the social quadrant of inclusive education can lead to greater results.
One fundamental benefit of social interaction with students in inclusion environments is ensuring the fulfillment of maximum potential (Obiakor, 2011). With that in mind, efforts must be made to maximize access and equity in inclusion for students with disabilities; the importance of valuing all learners despite disability, race, gender or other demographic is heavily emphasized in education. This increases in the minds of all students, as well as teachers and the community, notions of social justice and equity that permits further social interaction and greater benefits for all students involved, disabled and non-disabled (Obiakor, 2011).
Attitudes Toward Inclusion Students
One of the most significant barriers to learning found in inclusion classrooms and curricula are negative attitudes and preconceptions toward disabled students by non-disabled students, teachers, and parents (Stark et al., 2011). Inclusive environments must be created while acknowledging the rights of all disabled students to learn alongside non-disabled students; to do otherwise creates deficits in attention paid to disabled students and their learning, thus nullifying efforts made toward creating better education outcomes and promoting exclusionsegregated classrooms. The role of parents of both disabled and non-disabled students is shown to be vital to development of effective environments. Assumptions that contribute to barriers in learning include: 1) children with disabilities requiring special, separate care and resources from the mainstream population, and do not require/deserve the same levels of participation in early childhood environments; 2) problems experienced by disabled people are directly attributable to their condition; 3) iIt is inherent to their nature that disabled persons require help and support from society; 4) Disabled people should be treated like victims; and 5) A a student is defined by their disability (Stark et al., pp. 8-12).
Teaching staff often have very polarized and divisive attitudes regarding the implementation of inclusion mandates in their classrooms - resistance to the practice can stem from factors such as institutional politics and diversity of ideological positions (O'Neill, Bourke & Kearney, 2009). The discourse surrounding inclusion often leads to fracturing and other challenges for teachers to assimilate disabled students into their curricula effectively. The existing ideology of special education as exclusionary and segregated from the mainstream student population remains a dominant one in theory and practice alike (p. 589). Teachers often still demonstrate a lack of responsibility towards disabled students in inclusion classrooms through various means, including disabled students being ignored in curriculum and instruction, with much of that support being delegated to the teacher aide. Other concerns include significant differences in the methods of reporting progress of disabled learners and non-disabled learners, which contributes to segregation of learners in classroom contexts (O'Neill, Bourke & Kearney, 2009).
One of the more accurate and crucial predictors for successful inclusion of disabled students into integrated classrooms is the attitude of general education teachers toward the initiative itself. Teachers continue to possess mixed feelings regarding the mandate to provide the least restrictive environment for students with disabilities to learn. Taylor and Ringlaben (2012) investigate pre-service teachers' attitudes toward inclusion; typically, attitudes toward inclusive education are substantially more negative before appropriate teacher education. Typical concerns include anxiety regarding whether or not individual teachers possess the self-efficacy to successfully produce positive outcomes in learning for both disabled and non-disabled students in the same classroom, lack of experience in working with disabled students, and more. Teacher education programs to train instructors to prepare, provide and evaluate students within inclusion classrooms have been demonstrated to significantly increase teachers' pre-service confidence and attitudes regarding working with students with disabilities (Taylor & Ringlaben, 2012).
Doulkeridou et al. (2011) investigated attitudes of teachers presiding over classrooms participating in inclusion of students with disabilities in physical education classes in Greece. Despite previous attitudes in preceding years (before the implementation of an inclusion physical education (PE) program) being negative, favorable attitudes towards inclusion were found on the part of athletics teachers. Instructors of the integrated and included PE courses showed positive attitudes toward the practice of inclusion, though these attitudes were mild to moderate. Factors that contributed to these positive factors, it was found, included support services for teachers and students, teacher preparation for disabled students, and optimistic and encouraging attitudes regarding inclusion from instructors. These factors, once applied, have been shown to lead to positive outcomes in social interaction and integration, as well as physical activity in students with developmental disabilities (Doulkeridou et al., 2011).
Inclusion education is not limited to secular and public schools; independent religious and Christian schools have been implementing inclusion policies in countries such as South Africa (Walton, 2002). It has been shown in this context, in particular, that inclusive schools must benefit from education managers who provide leadership and vision to their curriculum. As education managers control the material and personnel resources that are needed to facilitate greater inclusivity, it is important for managers to maintain positive attitudes and constructive frameworks around these inclusion measures in order to provide them the needed support to provide effective learning outcomes (Walton, 2002). Again, encouragement toward greater inclusivity, training of educators to handle special needs students, and planning for future inclusivity are purported to be effective measures for creating productive and positive inclusion measures in schools.
Fakolade and Adeniyi (2009) investigate attitudes of teachers toward inclusion classrooms in Nigeria, noting complex relationships between attitudes and overall experiences with disabled children. It is found that a great deal of negativity directed towards disabled students in inclusion settings stems from a lack of knowledge regarding disabled persons (p. 63). Classroom teachers are often made to feel inadequate when presented with the task of educating children with special needs as well as mainstream students in a regular classroom. Furthermore, negative experiences in practical inclusion classrooms have heavily influenced teachers' attitudes, in addition to personality traits and demographic characteristics (p. 64). These attitudes also tend to fall along gender and marriage lines, with married teachers and female teachers having more favorable attitudes toward inclusion of students; this contributes to the acknowledgement of numerous complex sources for negative attitudes toward inclusion, and the need to find open-ended and effective solutions for improving instructor and community attitudes.
Efforts to eliminate inclusion in education environments carry the potential for negative effects in children's scores and school's assessments in state-mandated proficiency tests (Adams, 2001). High-stakes tests, such as those mandated by NCLB, have been shown to have the potential to harm instructional practice and increase special education placement. Furthermore, interschool politics have been known to cause teachers to transfer out of inclusion schools, due to the perceived notion that special needs children would bring down tests scores, and thus make the school accountable for Intervention or Redesigned classifications as per the NCLB Act. These stigmas have led to the loss of inclusion programs through the sacrifice and transfer of special education teachers, which leads to misplacement of students into special needs programs who may not qualify. Efforts to prevent these negative outcomes include greater faculty support to prevent transfers and loss of special education teachers, greater integrity and accountability for the actions of special education teachers to maintain student rights (Adams, 2001).
Existing Inclusion Practices
In order to implement inclusion practices into a classroom or school setting, several principles must be followed, including articulating and agreeing upon an inclusion-focused mission; possessing clearly defined standards and assessments for all students; offering a broad range of services to address various needs of special education students and more (Imbimbo & Knopf, 2007).
One model of inclusion in classroom settings is the partial inclusion classrooms, which typically incorporates a team-teaching model; in this model, a special education teacher and general education teacher are simultaneously responsible for teaching a class. Each classroom typically also features a teaching assistant, and classes are heterogeneously structured to provide balance between disabled and non-disabled activities, playing to the behavior and strengths of the class body (Imbimbo & Knopf, 2007). Schools using this model often utilize instructional strategies including ongoing assessment of the individual strengths, trouble spots, and needs of all children in the classroom. The Early Childhood Literacy Assessment System (ECLAS) is one example of a diagnostic assessment used toward this end (p. 4).
A partial inclusion environment typically involves special needs children attending integrated classes for at least half the day, then spending the remaining time with specialized services such as speech therapy, which are provided outside the classroom (Refice, 2006). While the disabled students learn how to interact with and learn with students without disabilities, both general and special educators can work more immediately with the learner and provide support. Often, the special educator can take the student out for portions of the day to perform the aforementioned specialized services, which are tailored to the specific needs of the disabled student, permitting the general education teacher to focus on the vast majority of students. This particular model is said to be quite successful in providing improved results for disabled students (Refice, 2006).
In the full inclusion classroom, general and special educators are with all children at all hours of class time, and the disabled students are not segregated from non-disabled students in any way. This is meant to allow for greater social and cognitive interaction with non-disabled students, and provide the fewest number of restrictions to learning. However, some disadvantages to full inclusion have been noted, including general frustration from general educators that these courses take up more overall class time, due to the longer time taken to get disabled students to catch up to the material required. This may have the result of making the class fall behind in curriculum, as greater amounts of cumulative time are spent on lessons (Refice, 2006, p. 28). This is contrasted with partial inclusion environments, where special education teachers can also feel frustrated that they are spending more time as an aide to a general education teacher than the primary educator of special needs students.
Kilanowski-Press, Foote and Rinaldo (2010) claim that the current state of inclusion practices in general education classrooms is extremely heterogeneous, with many different inclusion models currently being implemented in the classroom. Co-teaching, in particular, is cited as a particularly uncommon (yet effective) method, being operationally defined as "the joint instruction of students with and without disabilities by general and special educators in the general education classroom" (p. 54). Other methods of inclusion teaching practices include consultant teacher support, utilization of volunteer services, and more. The vast majority of students with disabilities received one-to-one student assistance, The researchers conclude that consultative or consultant teacher models provide a comprehensive and flexible means of delivering direct and indirect service modalities to students with learning and developmental disabilities.
Joy and Murphy (2012) examined an intensive French as a second-language education program that included special needs children in their activity system. Social constructivist and social-interactionist approaches were used in the teaching model, using scaffolding, multiple modes of representation, social interaction, holistic and other methods of learning within the method. Activity systems, in which instruments, subjects, rules, object, community and division of labor are interrelated with the goal of producing positive outcomes, were used as a framework (p. 105). According to the results, positive behavior changes, greater self-confidence and self-esteem, as well as motivation and engagement with the material was demonstrated, and both special needs and non-special needs children were seen to acquire basic French oral and written proficiency.
Some schools are implementing measures to limit their reliance on paraprofessionals working in special education, and working toward more inclusive measures as a matter of efficiency. Giangreco, Broer and Suter (2011) conducted a multisite mixed-methods evaluation study of 26 schools conducting the Guidelines for Selecting Alternatives (GSA) to Overreliance on Paraprofessionals inclusion curriculum planning tool. The GSA involves a ten-step process that examines school practices for students with disabilities in classrooms, evaluating these practices to come up with viable alternatives. The impact of this assessment in these schools included extending inclusive opportunities at the expense of caseloads for special educators and paraprofessionals, and classroom practices and collaboration were shown to be dramatically improved (Giangreco, Broer & Suter, 2011).
The International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health (ICF) is typically used as a universal language for those working in disability research and working with disabled individuals (Maxwell, Alves & Moretti, 2010). However, a child and youth version of the ICF (ICF-CY) has been developed to track and evaluate functioning in disabled children and adolescents currently being educated in classrooms, both inclusive and exclusive. This metric uses biopsychosocial approaches (i.e. tying psychosocial issues to biological functions which cause them) to functioning to determine the influence of environments and participation experience on students with disabilities. The biopsychosocial model of disability treatment emphasizes the need for social, educational and functional interaction in disabled individuals' education, which are outcomes specifically favored and purported by inclusive education (Maxwell, Alves & Moretti, 2010). While the ICF-CY is still primarily used for a medical context, its emphasis on disability and participation also provides helpful metrics for inclusive education teachers and researchers as well.
Given the successes that have been experienced with K-12 instances of inclusion of disabled students in education, consideration has been given to the incorporation of youth with intellectual and developmental disabilities in post-secondary education as well (Blumberg & Daley, 2009). Young adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) are increasingly being allowed to attend post-secondary schools, due to the acknowledgement of post-secondary education as a necessary means to become successful community members and gainfully employed citizens. The Career and Community Studies Program at the College of New Jersey is cited as one particular example of inclusion education in college studies; these courses are liberal studies programs designed to integrate young adults with IDD with young mainstream peer mentors, to facilitate peer interaction, liberal learning and career exploration, among other objectives (p. 93). Peer mentors are used to achieve the same effect as non-disabled students in K-12 inclusion measures, to provide emotional and instrumental support, as well as social interaction with mainstream youth of similar age and disposition, thus resulting in greater social and educational outcomes.
Chapter Summary
Inclusion largely involves applying principles of diversity, interdisciplinary education techniques and consideration for presage, context, process and product into a combined education context for both disabled and non-disabled students. Partial inclusion and full inclusion are noted as the primary models by which inclusion education is performed, and advantages/disadvantages of both are outlined by research. Attitudes of teachers, parents, students and faculty regarding inclusion education are often negative, but can be improved through teacher training to handle inclusion environments and time spent with successful inclusion programs. Current inclusion programs demonstrate a marked increase in performance and self-efficacy among disabled students, with a particular focus on partial inclusion environments. In the next chapter, the research study pertinent to this project will be described in terms of its target audience, procedure, and preliminary assessment plan.
