Abstract
Despite the growing support for inclusion, there are still many misconceptions and concerns. Is it a philosophy, a program, or a placement? A clear definition seems to be part of the problem since no- where in the federal legislation is it defined. Can a school be considered inclusive and still have some of it's students in resource rooms or special classes? How do those closest to the education of students with disabilities perceive inclusion? This article reports on the attitudes and perceptions of parents, teachers, psychologists and administrators. It also describes new roles and responsibilities each must meet if the challenges of responsible inclusion are to be realized. Finally, it provides check lists which may assist others in measuring support for responsible inclusion.
Introduction
Special Education in the United States has a long history that reflects many changes in attitudes towards and perceptions of people with disabilities. Many diverse groups have contributed to this change process including parents, educators, psychologists, physicians, clergy, researchers and the disabled themselves.
Special education was established in the United States in the 1800's with students who had demonstrable disabilities such as blindness, deafness, crippling conditions as well as "idiotic and feeble- mindedness" (Smith and Luckkason, 1995) being taught in institutions. By 1917, most states had at least one institution in which children and adults were educated and lived for most of their lives (Scheerenberger, 1983). Although the basis for special education was founded in institutions, gradually public schools began to accept greater responsibility. This was a very slow process with only 12 percent of identified children and youth with disabilities receiving special education services in the schools, primarily in separate schools or classrooms by 1948 (Ballard, Ramierz, and Weintraub, 1982). The next twenty five years saw major growth in terms of number of students with disabilities being served by both public and private schools and a wider range of service configurations. A combination of advocacy and litigation was responsible for these changes.
Special education, as we know it today, became institutionalized in our public schools with the passage, in 1975, of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (P.L. 94-142) which is now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (P.L. 101-476). Over the years, students served under this Act increased dramatically. For the first time in the history of education, all individuals, regardless of the severity or complexity of their disability were entitled to a free, appropriate education as well as increased attention to parental involvement in programming. Many states expanded the federal legislation by offering more special education programs and services to a wider age range and greater number of students with special needs. Special education became a big, expensive, unique business.
Despite the progress made in providing education to students with disabilities, a number of professionals began to question the outcomes and to explore ways for greater integration. New models for providing special education programs and services began to be explored. Pull out programs were being replaced by greater integration in general classes as the mainstreaming movement of the 80's was replaced by the inclusion movement of the 90's. All of this began occurring simultaneously as school reform of general education became a national priority.
For well over a decade, American education has been almost obsessed with school reform. Part of this alarm was a result of the much publicized Nation at Risk ( U.S. Department of Education,1983 ) report. By the early nineties, every person even remotely connected with our education systems was aware of the America Goal 2000 challenge ( U.S. Department of Education, 1991). Most of those goals continue to be part of the 90's educational agenda.
Many states had already begun to address inclusion before President Clinton's dictates. For instance, in 1995, the West Virginia Legislature mandated that each school faculty senate develop a strategic plan to manage the integration of special needs students into regular classes in their respective schools.
As a result of this state legislation, major changes have been occurring in the state's teacher training programs, special education classification, identification and assessment procedures, achievement testing, and service delivery models.
Despite the growing support for inclusion, there are still many misconceptions often generated by confusing data. One example is the 27th Annual Phi Delta Kappa Gallup Poll on the Public's Attitude Toward Public Schools (Elam and Rose, 1995). In that Poll one series of questions dealt with the issue of inclusion of special education students in regular classrooms. The conclusion cited in the summary report was that the public's clear preference is to educate students with learning and behavior problems in separate classrooms. This finding is very misleading. A review of the four questions asked on inclusion indicated the terms physically handicapped, mentally retarded, and learning disabilities were used interchangeable as if their special needs were the same. There was no acknowledgment of the level of disability as well as the range of options available on a continuum of service placements. Respondents had to choose either a regular class preference or special class preference. Clearly there are a series of placement options in between these extremes including part time regular class placement, resource rooms for short periods of time, and itinerant services. A letter response from the senior author of this often quoted survey assured this senior author that the next time the area of special education or inclusion was addressed in a PDK Gallup Poll, there would greater consultation with knowledgeable special educators before drafting questions. It was also noted that in some states, students identified as gifted are part of the special education population as are students with speech disorders. Interestingly, in 1997 Phi Delta Kappa International sponsored a series of 15 regional leadership training institutes on inclusion in the United States and Canada.
A clear definition of inclusion seems to be part of the problem as we consider school restructuring. Nowhere in the federal legislation is the term defined. IDEA does require students to place students in the least restrictive environment (LRE) to the maximum extent appropriate. For the most part agreement does exist that inclusion involves educating each student with a special education need in the school, and when appropriate, the class the student would have attended if he or she did not have a disability. A guiding principle is that services are brought to the student rather than the student to the services. Another , and perhaps of even greater significance , is that the student with a disability is fully accepted as part of the student body of that school with all the rights, privileges and responsibilities as every other student.
The senior author has advocated for the term responsible inclusion (Lombardi, 1994). Placing students with special needs in general classes without the necessary support services is not responsible inclusion. Expecting general teachers to make accommodations and modifications in their teaching without inservice or preservice training is not responsible inclusion. Exempting students with special needs from formalized achievement testing without providing for alternative equally effective assessments is not responsible inclusion. And limiting parental input to just signing an IEP is not responsible inclusion.
References
Arick, J.R. & Krug, D.A. (1993). Special education administrators in the United States: Perceptions of policy and personnel issues. The Journal of Special Education 27(3), 348-364.
Ballard, J., Ramierz, B.A., & Weintraub, F.J. (1982). Special education in American: It's legal and governmental foundations. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
Beninghof, A.M. & Singer, A.L.T. (1995). Ideas for inclusion: The school administrator's guide. ERIC: 386888, 147 pages.
Bracey, G.W. (1997). What happened to America's public schools? Not what you may think. American Heritage, November, 38-52.
Chance, E.W. & Grady, M.L. (1990). Creating and implementing a vision for the school. NASSP Bulletin, 74(529) November: 12-18.
Christenson, S.L., Hurley, C.N., Sheriden, S.M., & Fenstermacher, K. (1997). Parents' and School Psychologists' Perspectives on Parent Involvement Activities. School Psychology Review (26) 1, 111-130.
Christenson, S.L. (1995). Best practices in supporting home-school collaboration. in A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.). Best Practices in School Psychology-III (pp. 253-267). Washington, D.C: National Association of School Psychologists.
Comer, J.P. (1995). School power: Implications of an intervention project. New York: Free Press.
Conrad, P.A. & Dill, C.F. (1984). Secondary teachers' perceptions of their professional role regarding implications of Public Law 94-142. ERIC ED245439, 23 pages.
Davies, D. (1993). Benefits and barriers to parent involvement: From Portugal to Boston to Liverpool. In N.F. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and schools in a pluralistic society (pp. 205-216). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Dwyer, K.P. & Gorin, S. (1996). A National Perspective of School Psychology in the Context of School Reform. School Psychology Review (24)4, 507-511.
Elam, S.M. & Rose, L.C. (1995). The 27th Annual Phi Delta Kappa Gallup Poll on the Public's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools. Phi Delta Kappan 77(1), 41-56.
Elliott, D. & McKenney, M. (1998). Four inclusion models that work. Teaching Exceptional Children, 30(4), 54-59.
Epstein, J.L. (1986). Parents reactions to teacher practices of parent involvement. The Elementary School Journal, 86, 277-294.
Epstein, J.L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 701-712.
Ferguson, D.L. (1995). The real challenge of inclusion: Confessions of a "Rabid Inclusionist". Phi Delta Kappan 77(4), 281-287.
Fritz, M.F. & Miller, M. (1995). Challenges of the inclusive classroom: Roles and responsibilities. Contemporary Education 66(4): 211-214.
Gameros, P. (1995). The visionary principal and inclusion of students with disabilities. NASSP Bulletin 79(568), 15-17.
Geenen, K. (1995) Barriers, sources of support and relevant skills for school psychologists' active participation in Goals 2000. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Henderson, A.T., & Berla, N. (1994). A new generation of evidence: The family is critical to student achievement. Washington, DC: National Committee for Citizens in Education.
Kagan, S.L., & Schraft, C.M. (1982)> When parents and schools come together: Differential outcomes of parent involvement in urban schools. Boston, MA: Institute For Responsive Education (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 281 951.
Kellaghan, T., Sloane, K., Alvarez, B., & Bloom, B.S. (1993). The home environment and school learning. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Laadt-Bruno, G., Lilley, P., & Westby, C. (1993). Collaborative approach to developmental care continuity with infants born at risk and their families. Topics in Language Disorders, 14(1), 15-28.
Lombardi, T.P. (1994). Responsible Inclusion of Students with Disabilities Fastback 373. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
Lombardi, T. P. (1997). Inclusion of children with disabilities. In D.R. Walling (Ed.), Hot Buttons: Unraveling 10 Controversial Issues in Education. (pp. 191-215). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
Lombardi, T.P., Nuzzo, D.L., Kennedy, K.D. & Foshay, J. (1994) Perceptions of parents, teachers and students regarding an integrated education inclusion program. The High School Journal, 77(4), 315-321.
Meacham, M.L. & Peckham, P.D. (1978). School psychologists at three- quarters century: Congruence between training, practice, preferred role and competence. Journal of School Psychology (16), 195-206.
McLaughlin, M.J. & Warren, S.H. (1992). Issues and options in restructuring schools and special education programs. University of Maryland at College Park and Wastat, Inc.
National Educational Goals Panel: (1994). National educational goals report: Washington , DD: U.S. Government Printing Office. Paul, J.L., Rosselli, H. & Evans, D. (1995). Integrating school restructuring and special education reform. Forth Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace & Company.
Roach, v. (1995). Supporting inclusion: Beyound the rhetoric. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(4), 295-299.
Scheerenberger, R.C. (1983). A history of mental retardation. Baltimore: Brookes.
Stoler, R.D. (1992). Perceptions of regular teachers towards inclusion of all handicapped students in their classrooms. Clearing House, 66(1) 60-62.
Scruggs, T. E. & Mastropieri, M. A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958-1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children 63(1) 59-74.
Smith, A. (1997). Systematic education reform and school inclusion. A view from a Washington office window. Education and Treatment of Children, 20(1), 7-20.
Smith, D.D. & Luckasson, R. (1995). Special education: Teaching in an age of challenge. Needham, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
U.S. Department of Education. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, D.C. : U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Education. (1991). America 2000: An education strategy. Washington, D.C. : U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Education. (1996). Eighteenth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Vidovich, D. & Lombardi, T.P. (1998). Parents',teachers' and administrators' perceptions of the process of inclusion. Education Research Quarterly 21(3), 41-52.
Villa, R.A, Thousand, J.S., Meyers, H. & Nevin, A. (1996). Teacher and administrator perceptions of heterogeneous education. Exceptional Children 63(1), 29-45.
Webb, N. (1994). Special education: With a new court decision backing them, advocates see inclusion as a question of values. The Harvard Educational Letter, 10(4): 1-3.
Will, M. (1988). Educating students with learning problems and the changing role of the school psychologist. School Psychology Review, 17 (3), 476-478.
Yesseldyke, J. & Geenen, K. (1996). Integrating the Special Education and Compensatory Education Systems into the School Reform Process: A National Perspective. School Psychology Review, 25 (4), 418-430.
Yesseldyke, J., Dawson, P., Lehr, C., Reschly, D., Reynolds, M., & Telzrow, C. (1997) School Psychology: A Blueprint for Training and Practice II. Bethesda, MD., National Association of School Psychologists.
 |
 |