One reason that has led many to call for more inclusive options for students with special needs is the past effects of educational options – or what has been called the continuum of services for those learners. Educational options for students in special education historically have been static, and to some extent this situation still exists in some school systems. Once a learner is placed, there generally is little change from one placement option to another.
Because movement across placement options within special education also can be difficult, rigidity in placement options is found within special education programs as well. For instance, learners who have been classified with mild intellectual disabilities, even if these options are demonstrated to be appropriate. The principle of least restrictive environment highlights that student and family needs are continually changing, and with those changes comes the need to modify program options (McNulty et al 1996). Program goals should be designed to move learners on a continuum toward less restrictive environments.
In reality, this has not been the case for many students with special needs and their families. An important component of the least restrictive environment is the principle of individualization. Individualization means that programs are based upon analysis of a learner’s unique needs. As these principles become more commonplace, the emphasis should shift from the categorical label of students to their individual strengths and weaknesses. At present, the tendency is still to place learners according to the category of disability.
The regular education initiative (REI) was a movement within the field of special education that preceded the inclusion movement, proposing that regular and special education be merged into one delivery system (Davis 1989; Marozas and May 1988). The various options that REI supporters presented can be placed on a continuum ranging from fairly drastic measures of abolishing special education (Stainback and Stainback 1984) to more moderate measures of developing an equal partnership between regular (general) and special education (Reynolds et al 1987).
Proponents of the REI included students with mild handicaps and learners who were not targeted for special education but who had received some type of service. In 1986, Madaline Will, the Secretary of Education, outlined what she saw as the limitation of special, remedial, and compensatory programs that pulled students out of regular classrooms to provide them with services designed to help them succeed in the so-called mainstream of school system. She believed, as did other proponents of the REI, that special programs had failed in helping learners achieved their potential (Heller et al 1982; Reynolds et al 1987).
Inconsistencies of labeling and classification systems were seen as reasons why these students were segregated and would ultimately become the outcasts of school systems. These professionals also supported the notion that all students with learning problems require the same type of help. They believed that the forced dichotomy of special and regular education created an unnecessary rivalry that hindered delivery of the best instruction to the very students who needed it most.
Proponents of REI believe that too many students are being identified for special programs when they could be served adequately for special programs when they could be served adequately in general education classes with in-class support (Kauffman et al 1988). Proponents point to evidence they believe supports new models of instruction for students with learning problems in general education classrooms (Hallahan et al 1988; Wang and Walberg 1988). Reynolds and his colleagues, suggested a heterogeneous grouping approach that would include curriculum-based identification systems and the Adaptive Learning Environment Model (ALEM).
The adoption of the ALEM program would restructure the entire school curriculum by arranging basic skills into hierarchical units. When students master one unit, they move on to the next higher one. The school essentially becomes ungraded, and the students move through the system at their own speed. There would be no labeling. Students with significant learning problems would receive help based on their level of functioning in the units of instruction, not according to a categorical label. ALEM seems to be a logical, commonsense approach with several points of merit.
During the early part of this decade, it was popular among some educators who rallied around it as a viable alternative to the separation of special and general education. Some professionals, however, have urged caution in adopting the REI too quickly because of the lack of empirical evidence that it is as successful as its developers claim (Fuchs and Fuchs 1988). With the call for eliminating existing special education programs in the late 1980s came a barrage of literature that questioned the validity of the REI.
For example, Kauffman et al (1988) argued that two of the assumptions of the REI – the over identification of students and the failure of schools to meet their needs – are untrue. Their study demonstrated that since 1986 the percentage of the student population receiving special education services has declined. According to these researchers, blaming teachers for the failure of all students is too simplistic and does not adequately explain the complex interaction between teachers and students with significant learning problems. Hallahan et al.
(1988) also looked at the REI from a research perspective and found its basis weak. The research argued that the efficacy studies used by the REI proponents to prove the ineffectiveness of special education are flawed methodologically and have yielded mixed results. The results of these studies have provided little evidence that more intensive placements such as special education classes should be abolished. In an intensive critique of the ALEM research literature, Fuchs and Fuchs (1988) found enough methodological and analytical flaws to question whether this instructional approach has met its basic goals.
From the REI movement grew a reform effort that called for elimination of special education and full inclusion for all students with disabilities in general education classes. Most professionals and parents agree that, though increasing integration of individuals with disabilities in the general population is important, full inclusion into general education for all students with disabilities may be counterproductive (Jenkins et al 1990; Fuchs and Fuchs 1994). Exclusion vs Inclusion Arguments supporting inclusion generally center around the benefits derived both academically and socially for children with disabilities.
Academic achievement is enhanced, advocates of inclusion contend, when children with disabilities are expected to adhere to the higher standards that usually exist in the regular classroom setting. Furthering this argument, supporters stress that these higher standards are necessary because special education students are far less likely than their non-disabled peers to graduate from high school, successfully maintain employment, or live without assistance provided from a variety of source (O’Neil 1993).
Models of appropriate social behavior are more readily available in regular education classrooms; students have the opportunity to form friendships with non-disabled peers as well as with those who live in surrounding neighborhoods (Willis 1994). Advocates for full inclusion endorse the practice of placing all students with disabilities in a regular education classroom housed in their neighborhood schools regardless of the nature of severity of their exceptionalities.
Full inclusionists favor the abolishment of placement options (e. g.self-contained classrooms, homebound instruction, special schools), advocating instead that all special education students should receive instruction in the regular education classroom. This environment, supporters stress, more appropriately reflects mainstream society and establishes a supportive, humane atmosphere for all students (Behrmann, 1993, Staub and Peck 1994). Advocates further imply that special education provided outside the regular education classroom is cost ineffective; student potential is limited when labels are applied.
Students frequently endure long bus rides to locations housing special education programs and the special education curriculum lacks continuation and flow (Behrmann 1993, O’Neil 1993). In contrast to inclusion advocates’ calls for fully inclusive classrooms, critics argue that many students with disabilities are best served in noninclusive settings, noting that many students with disabilities or students who were gifted were originally pulled from the regular education classroom because they were not well served there (Kauffman 1995). Teaching as if “one size fits all” disregards the individual needs of special education students.
Moreover, when the demands of servicing students with disabilities, some severe, are added to the regular education classroom, the needs of low, average, and above-average students are often ignored (Delisle 1994). Enhanced academic achievement and self-concept of students with disabilities, regardless of placement, are unsubstantiated through prolonged research (Kauffman et al 1988; O’Neil 1994). This lack of systematic and comprehensive empirical evidence supporting inclusionary practices could negatively affect both regular and special education students as well as their teachers (Lewis et al 1994).
Opponents of inclusion assert that many local school boards, state departments of education, and legislators favor inclusion simply to reduce the costs of special education programs (Skanker 1994). Furthermore, skeptics of inclusion charge that, in an effort to make the inclusion classroom appropriate for all students, the more able children may experience boredom, and special needs children may experience frustration when trying to keep up with average instructional pace. Consequently, achievement test scores of all students in inclusion classrooms could decline (Brackett 1994), and inclusion teachers would likely be held accountable.
Critics of inclusion further emphasize that inclusionary practices could limit the availability of choice for parents and students and negatively affect regular education classroom in several ways (Willis 1994). For example, they accuse full inclusionists of being concerned primarily with socialization of disabled students, thereby placing academic achievement as a secondary consideration. Placing children with pressing medical needs requiring direct care or interventions in regular education classrooms may adversely affect the environment both academically and socially (Kauffman 1995).
Furthermore, opponents of inclusion stress that regular education teachers, who must provide services for this diverse student population could lack the appropriate support and assistance to adequately meet the needs of all their students (Shanker 1994, Willis 1994). Managing Inclusive Classroom Settings The most basic ingredient required for successful inclusion programs is the need for general and special educators to work together as equal partners in teams that solve problems, develop innovative program options and curriculum, and implement instruction to both students with and without disabilities (William and Fox 1996).
Collaborative work as a step towards inclusion The theoretical framework is based on a historic-cultural approach (Daniels 2001; Vygotsky 1978). It involves a focus on the use of collaborative work, namely peer interactions, as a mediation tool to achieve more inclusive settings. Vygotsky (1978) stresses the importance of social interactions in the development of complex functions. He also underlines the potential of working in the zone of proximal development in order to promote children’s development.
Subsequent studies illuminate the role of collaborative work in knowledge appropriation, and in the mobilization and development of student’s competencies (Cesar 1998; Lea and Nicoll 2002; Perret-Clermont et al 2004), in multicultural settings (Cesar and Oliveira 2005; Elbers and de Hans 2005), when associated to new technological devices (Joiner et al 2000), or in connect to the integration of students categorized as having SEN (Ainscow, 1999). In the context of this research, learning is conceived of as a communicative process.
Daniels (2001) and Wertsch (1991) show how important it is to adopt a historic-cultural perspective when studying learning processes and agents acting in learning settings. This is also illustrated by Cesar (2003) in analyzing the contributions of collaborative work to the development of more inclusive settings. This study illuminated how students learned to negotiate meanings, roles, arguments, or solving strategies in order to co-construct their knowledge and their identities.
By associating a new didactic contract which relates to the mutual expectations of those involved within a learning context (Schubauer-Leoni and Perret-Clermont, 1997), that is coherent with teachers’ practices and their ways of acting (Cesar, 2003), significant tasks, and the notion of situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991), it is possible to construct a learning community, conceived as an inclusive learning setting.
Such a contract is intended to promote collaborative work amongst students (peers or small groups), valuing horizontal (student/student; among teachers/researchers) as well as vertical (teacher/student) interactions. In this way, students become more autonomous, responsible for their learning, developing higher mental functions (Vygotsky, 1978). It is a way of empowering students, not least those SEN-related, since it gives them a voice, allowing them to become legitimate participants, engaged in relevant learning decisions, including the evaluation process.
We argue that this evolution, from peripheral participation to legitimate participation, is an essential step towards more inclusive settings. Thus, the didactic contract we propose is based on inclusive schooling principles (Ainscow, 1999), as well as socio-constructivist theory (Cesar, 2003). Giving a voice to all participants is a main concern, as words only have a meaning when used by participants as discourse is socially constructed (Valsiner, 1998). This being the case, we use Bakhtin’s (1981) concept of voice, assuming a dialogical perspective.
This perspective is also consistent with Herman’s (2001) conception of self: a dialogical self in which multiple identities co-exist and interact, not always in a non-conflictive way. The conflicts between some of the students’ identities are illuminated in some interviews (Cesar, 2003) and play a fundamental role in the process of inclusion. It is when students – and the leaming community – are able to deal with these conflicts, accepting diversity, that we may achieve inclusion. Positive interactions among teachers, as well as students, contribute to a sense of school and classroom community.
Inclusive schools seek to encourage collaboration among teachers for the purposes of planning, teaching, and supporting students. With adequate support, collaborative teaching leads to positive outcomes for learners in heterogeneously grouped classes (Villa et al 1996). Implementing effective teaching collaborations, however, is time-consuming and complex. Teachers often express concern about changes in their roles and responsibilities; differences in teaching style and philosophical orientation; and logistical issues, such as scheduling, planning time, and resource allocation.
Friend and Bursuck (2002) offer a number of school-wide strategies to support collaboration, including (a) developing and adopting a set of rules, responsibilities, and privileges pertaining to collaboration, (b) providing teachers with designated time for co-planning and reflection, and (c) offering preservice and inservice training in collaboration. Creating community within a school also depends on the policies and practices affecting families. Although parent participation has long been a goal in both general and special education, differences in policies and practices within the two fields warrant attention.
Parent participation in general education has traditionally focused on sharing information about student achievement and ensuring that parents provide the context and supervision needed to complete assignments (Hoover-Demsey et al 1992). Parental involvement in the education of children with disabilities, on the other hand, is not just considered good practice, it is mandated by law (IDEA 1997). Parents of children with disabilities must be given the opportunity to collaborate in decision making about the placement, instruction and related services provided to their children.
An understanding of what parents consider to be effective partnerships may be useful to teachers in negotiating expectations about parent involvement in inclusive settings. Parents interviewed by Soodak and Erwin (2000) stressed the importance of building trust, which developed from interactions characterized by honesty, openness, and mutual respect. Specifically, parents felt welcomed by an open-door policy, ongoing opportunities for involvement, and informal and open communication with professionals. Interestingly, parents said they felt less of a need to be present in schools when relationships were based on trust and respect.
In summary, membership, friendship and collaborations are key components of an inclusive school community. Diverse classrooms provide a unique opportunity to promote a sense of understanding and tolerance of others – conditions that are likely to reduce conflict and opportunities for misbehavior. However, all teachers, including those who strive to create a sense of community among diverse learners, need to be responsive to students whose behavior impedes their own or other’s sense of community (Stainback and Stainback 1996).
Physical Management in Inclusive Settings Inclusive instructional settings can be located anywhere teachers decide learning to take place. Most often, professional teaching occurs in classrooms. The concept of physical management of the inclusive setting has expanded into recognizing community locales as appropriate for teaching academic and social skills (Langone 1996). Arranging the physical environment to facilitate learning is important in developing successful inclusive programs. It goes beyond moving desks and chairs.
Other considerations for designing efficient learning environment include scheduling, developing group and individual activities, utilizing equipment and technology and developing learning centers. Arranging the Physical Environment When arranging the physical environment of the classroom, the inclusive team should develop an overall plan (including programs), enabling a maximum use of space while keeping materials centralized, thus minimizing teacher movement. This becomes critical when instructional teams share space (Stainback and Stainback 1996).
Teachers waste valuable instructional time when they have to stop lessons to retrieve materials in another part of the room. This situation also affects the other member of the inclusive team and the students they are teaching. Teachers should arrange the classroom in relation to the room’s fixed features (doors, windows, closets), functional relationships among areas (student sections away from activities that produce higher noise levels), and primary pathways (efficient planning of student traffic routes).
Scheduling Developing an efficient activity schedule is a valuable skills for teachers. Downtime in the classroom can be a chief contributor to poorly managed inclusive programs. Teachers working in an inclusion model must consider the length of lessons, times of day more appropriate teaching specific skills, and time blocks for individualized instruction as well as group instructions. Cooperative Learning Groups Grouping learners is an important part of scheduling (Vaughn et al 1997). It involves grouping special children within the general education students.
Programming for the individual does not eliminate group instruction (Stainback et al 1996). In fact, to develop true cooperative learning groups in which students with special needs become valued members, teachers should consider moving beyond grouping by ability and consider grouping according to the complementary skills of the learners. Small-group instruction can be implemented in one of two ways, depending on the activity. First, an activity may require that each group member complete a task that contributes to a total group product.
For example, a group of students with special needs along with their typical peers can work together to complete a community-based cost-comparison activity in local retail establishments. Each student is assigned to identify the prices of certain items that the group will collate and analyze. The second method of grouping involves meeting the needs of individual students within the confines of a group, where the learners share in common are the subject and physical proximity (Stainback and Stainback 1992).
For example, a group of four students may be working with the teacher on computation objectives. The learners may be at varying levels, requiring the teacher to spend small amounts of time individually directing each student. The primary concern is that the teacher arrange the physical space for delivering prompts/cues and reinforcers. This arrangement may be advantageous because the teacher can instruct and direct more learners simultaneously while allowing them to work at their own levels.
Members of inclusive teams are encouraged to seek helpful resources (Falvey 1995, Stainback and Stainback 1996). Developing an Inclusive Community Philosophically and pragmatically, inclusive education is primarily about belonging, membership, and acceptance. Historically, the inclusive school movement grew-out of a parent-initiated effort that focused on the rights of children with disabilities to participate with their nondisabled peers (Turnbull and Turnbull 2001).
Parents believed, and educators supported the notion that separating children on any characteristic, such as ability or race, inherently leads to an inferior education for those who are “tracked” out of the mainstream. In addition, efforts to allow part-time involvement in targeted subject areas (usually non-academic) based on student “readiness” to participate, as in the case of mainstreaming, resulted in less than favorable outcomes (Gartner and Lipsky 1987). What then emerged was a commitment to full-time membership in age-appropriate, general education classes.
Quality inclusion is not merely determined by student placement, but rather is based on creating an environment that supports and includes all learners (Villa and Thousand 2000). An inclusive school community must be supported by policies and practices at the school and classroom levels. However, specific policies, strategies, and supports needed to be in place to ensure that all children felt welcome and that the teachers were able to teach their children effectively. These practices were specifically aimed at promoting membership, friendship, and collaboration.
While these terms are central to inclusive education, they also hold important meaning to general educators seeking to create democratic classrooms. Promoting membership in the community According to parents and teachers, membership refers to a child’s right to belong and to have access to the same opportunities and experiences as other children of the same age (Kunc 2002).
In schools that effectively include all students, membership is promoted by educating all children in their neighborhood (i.e. local) schools, assigning students to classes heterogeneously within those schools and avoiding policies and practices that exclude students from programs, settings, or events. One revealing indicator of a school’s commitment to inclusion is whether there are conditions placed on a child’s participation in general education classes. Classroom community is undermined when membership is made conditional on the student’s behavioral or academic readiness (Soodak and Erwin 2000).
When students are required to earn their way into a class or school, teachers and students are given the message hat the child is not a full and rightful member of the class, which is likely to decrease teachers’ expectations for success and their willingness to assume responsibility for student learning. There is a substantial body of research demonstrating that sorting, grouping, and categorizing children reduces their status to that of being considered “other people’s children” (Delpit 1998; Sailor 2002).
On the other hand, acceptance of student diversity provides the groundwork for accommodating naturally occurring learning and behavioral differences among students such as differentiated instruction. Facilitating Friendship Inclusive school communities focus on social as well as academic outcomes for children. Friendship matter to children, their parents, and teachers because they provide children with the opportunity to develop important skills and attitudes and perhaps most important, they enhance quality of life for children and their families (Meyer et al 1998).
The benefits of having friends, and conversely the negative effects of being socially isolated, many schools actively strive to foster friendships among children. Some of the strategies used to promote friendships include (a) selecting activities that involve cooperation and collaboration rather than competition, (b) creating rituals that involve all members of the class such as class meetings and friendship circles, (c) using children’s literature to promote discussions about friendship and belonging, and (d) setting up classroom rules to encourage respect, such as requiring turn-taking or not permitting any child to be left. out.