Promoting Inclusive Educational Practices in the United States

Public Law (P.L.) 94-142 (1975), now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) mandated a “free and appropriate public education (FAPE) for all handicapped children.” Within this law was the concept of Least Restrictive Environment (LRE), which meant each student is to be individually evaluated and placed on a continuum of options including general education classes, separate classes, separate schools, home, or a hospital setting ranging from part to all of the school day.  Mandates within P.L. 94-142 were enormously important in providing students with disabilities access to public education. Unfortunately, far too many placement decisions still foreclosed students to separate facilities, an indication that a largely segregated system, often referred to as a “parallel system,” had been created. The law’s mechanism for identifying the LRE was often misinterpreted or misused rather than being treated as a legal and valid option for placing a student with a disability in a general education classroom. Lipsky and Gartner (1997) and Linton (1998) found reformists, disability rights advocates, activists, and others criticized the LRE mandate as a loophole, which allowed institutions of education to maintain the non-integration of people with disabilities into schools and therefore society at large.

Related to the least restrictive environment (LRE) mandate within the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Lipsky and Gardner (1997) examined beliefs and practices in education dating back to 1975.  They found mainstreaming practices typically assumed a student with a disability could cope with the academic and social demands of a general education classroom. Specifically, they found mainstreaming practices were traditionally considered only “applicable to those students who were considered to be most like normal” (p. 77).

By contrast, when highly qualified teachers and administrators willingly utilize available information and resources to promote best practices, inclusion rates are positively impacted.  Inclusive educational practices signify that a student with a disability can benefit both academically and socially from the general education classroom, even if goals for students with disabilities were different from typically developing students. Historically, too often mainstreaming and inclusion were used interchangeably in the educational literature. However, they differ significantly in terms of both definition and philosophy. In a critical commentary on the field of special education, Kauffman (1998) stated, “Inclusion has become virtually meaningless, a catch-word used to give a patina of legitimacy to whatever program people are trying to sell or defend” (p. 246).

Fortunately, the p,  eriod following 1997 marked a clear point of change in the field of special education. Requirements increasing accountability using standards-based assessment for all students as stated in the re-authorization of IDEA (1997, 2004) stressed increased access to the general education curriculum and inclusion of general educators as members of the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team. These explicit mandates promoted the opportunity for increased inclusion to become firmly established as the foundation for placement decisions. Although requirements for placement within the least restrictive environment had been in special education legislation since 1975, the explicit mandates of IDEA 1997 increased academic expectations, resulting in a shift in policies and practices within education. An effective “inclusion movement” helped ensure educators will, to the greatest extent appropriate, provide access to the general education curriculum in the least restrictive environment (LRE) for students with disabilities. 

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires each state to develop and submit annual reports, known as the State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR).  The SPP/APR allows evaluation of each State’s efforts to implement the requirements and purposes of the IDEA and describes how the State will improve its implementation.  The Monitoring and State Improvement Planning Division (MSIP) within the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) is responsible for ensuring States' compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). MSIP uses data from the reports to ensure that States and other public agencies continue to implement programs designed to improve results for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities. Based on collected and certified data, the 17 Indicators for Part B of the SPP/APR and 11 Indicators for Part C of the SPP/APR allows dis-aggregation of each State’s compliance with IDEA.

For instance, Part B Indicator 5 requires states collect data on educational environments for children ages 6-21, which allows the USDE to monitor inclusion rates.  This allows the USDE to identify, evaluate, and monitor each State’s attempt to address concerns related to the inclusion of students with special needs in the least restrictive environment (LRE). States also collect data on variables that may be influencing its districts’ practices related to the inclusion of students with special needs in the LRE. Identification of effective progress toward satisfaction of LRE mandates, as identified by Indicator 5 measures, can therefore be further analyzed and help determine whether certain variables are more present in those States deemed highly inclusive. Indicator 9 examines the percentage of students ages 3–21 served by IDEA and the percentage distribution of children and youth receiving services for specific disabilities. This indicator also examines the rate at which students ages 14–21 served by IDEA exited school. 

Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups examines the educational progress and challenges students face in the United States by race and ethnicity. Monitoring of the data may help the USDE and SEAs utilize leadership principles that promote inclusive practices.  Knowing how to interpret and utilize data allows administrators and teacher leaders to differentiate between what Stephen Covey (1992) metaphorically described as “…good managers (who) will take you through the forest, no matter what.  A leader will climb a tree and identify when, ‘This is the wrong forest.’”  

Traditionalist theorists led by Andrews, Carnine, Coutinho, Edgar, Forness, Fuchs & Fuchs (2000) long contended current teacher preparation standards were sufficient for promoting the education for students with special needs in the least restrictive environment. By contrast, reformists or substantial re-conceptualists (Paul & Ward, 1996) advocated for explicit teacher competency standards to be requisite for ensuring inclusive education for students with special needs in the least restrictive environment. Because of the historical problems in ethically and legally providing a student with a disability her or his LRE, it is prudent to review and adjust, as needed, to ensure each state’s teacher competency standards- as presented in its teacher preparation programs- will optimally promote inclusive educational practices.  Minimally, teacher preparation programs should ensure that teacher candidates review user guides to increase understand and competency related to the expectations of the 17 Indicators for Part B of the SPP/APR and the 11 Indicators for Part C of the SPP/APR.

To Cite:

Anderson, C.J. (February 28, 2020 Promoting inclusive educational practices in the United States  [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

References:

Andrews, J. E., Carnine, D. W., Coutinho, M. J., Edgar, E. B., Forness, S. R., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (2000). Bridging the special education divide. Remedial and Special Education, 21(5), 258-260, 267.

Gartner, A., & Lipsky, D. K. (1987). Beyond special education: Toward a quality system for all students. Harvard Education Review, 57 (4), 367-395.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA),

 P. L. No. 108–446, 20 U.S.C. sections 611–614.

Kauffman, J. M. (1999). Commentary: Today’s special education and its messages for

 tomorrow. The Journal of Special Education, 32 (4), 244-254.

Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1997). Inclusion and school reform: Transforming

 America’s classrooms. Baltimore: Paul Brookes. 

Paul, P. V., & Ward, M. (1996). Inclusion paradigms in conflict. Theory Into Practice,

35 (1), 4-11.

Reynolds, M. C. (1989). An historical perspective: The delivery of special education to

mildly disabled and at-risk students. Remedial and Special Education,10 (6),7-11.

Reliable Assessment Utilization Can Impact Inclusion Rates More Than Knowledge of Mandates

Public Law (PL) 94-142 (1975) mandated a “free and appropriate public education” (FAPE) for students identified with disabling educational conditions. Within this law was the concept of Least Restrictive Environment (LRE), which meant each student is to be individually evaluated and placed on a continuum of options including general education classes, separate classes, separate schools, home, or a hospital setting for part or all day. PL 94-142 certainly was enormously successful in providing students with disabilities access to a public education. However, far too many placement decisions initially foreclosed students to separate facilities, an indication that a largely segregated system, often referred to as a “parallel system,” had been created. PL 94-142’s mechanism of LRE was often being interpreted as a legal and valid option of not placing a student with a disability in a general education classroom. Lipsky and Gartner (1997) and Linton (1998) found reformists, disability rights advocates, activists, and others criticized the LRE mandate as a loophole, which allowed institutions of education to maintain the non-integration of people with disabilities into schools and therefore society at large.

Reviewing mainstreaming beliefs and practices in education dating back to 1975, Lipsky and Gardner (1997) found mainstreaming is based on an assumption that a student with a disability can cope with the academic and social demands of a general education classroom. Specifically, they found mainstreaming was traditionally only “applicable to those students who were considered to be most like normal” (p. 77). By contrast, inclusion signifies that a student with a disability can benefit both academically and socially from the general education classroom, even if goals for students with disabilities were different from typically developing students. Too often mainstreaming and inclusion are used interchangeably in educational literature (Fuchs, 2010). They differ significantly in terms of both definition and philosophy. In a critical commentary on the field of special education, Kauffman (1998) stated, “Inclusion has become virtually meaningless, a catch-word used to give a patina of legitimacy to whatever program people are trying to sell or defend” (p. 246). The p,  eriod following 1997 marked a clear point of change in the field of special education. Requirements increasing accountability using standards-based assessment for all students as stated in the reauthorization of IDEA (1997) stressed increased access to the general education curriculum and inclusion of general educators as members of the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team. These explicit mandates promoted the opportunity for increased inclusion to become firmly established as the foundation for placement decisions. Although requirements for placement within the least restrictive environment had been in special education legislation since 1975, the explicit mandates of IDEA 1997 increased academic expectations, resulting in a shift in policies and practices within education. An effective “inclusion movement” helps ensure educators will, to the greatest extent appropriate, provide access to the general education curriculum in the least restrictive environment (LRE) for students with disabilities.  A greater understanding as to what elements denote effective progress for this inclusion movement may result from a thorough analysis of data available through the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) and state educational agencies (SEA).

Through IDEA (2004) State Performance Plans (SPP) mandates, the USDE required identification, evaluation, and monitoring of each state’s attempts to address concerns related to the inclusion of students with special needs in the least restrictive environment (LRE). States must also collect data on variables that may influence its districts’ practices related to the inclusion of students with special needs in the LRE. Identification of effective progress toward satisfaction of LRE mandates, as identified by SPP Indicator 5 measures, can therefore be further analyzed by determining whether certain variables are more present in those states deemed highly successful. Understanding how to review SPP Indicator 5 data will allow stakeholders to utilize leadership principles described by Stephen Covey (1992) whereby “…good managers will take you through the forest, no matter what.  A leader will climb a tree and may say, ‘This is the wrong forest’.”  

As the result of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004), each state was required to identify baseline data related to its local educational agencies’ special education programs performance on education-related performance indicators. In addition to other important performance indicators, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) of the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) evaluated and monitored each state’s attempts to address concerns related to the inclusion of students with special needs in the least restrictive environment (LRE). This data was identified and monitored as SPP Indicator 5. Specifically, this performance indicator addresses the educational placement of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21, based on the percent of the day spent in one of three diverse types of educational environments:

A. Removed from regular class less than 21% of the day;

B. Removed from regular class greater than 60% of the day; or

C. Served in public or private separate schools, residential placements, or homebound or hospital placements.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A))

Most states initially collected and identified baseline data by analyzing LRE statistics based on the 2004-2005 fiscal year. Thereafter each state planned to collect and analyze yearly LRE data for SPP Indicator 5.  A sampling of ten initial State Performance Plans (SPP) found there was diversity in the baseline percentages identified for each state’s Indicator 5 results. The five-year progress projections were uniformly modest. For instance, the sampling revealed each of the ten states’ with approved SPP for Indicator 5, part A, established improvement as one-half of one percent (.005) per year. Therefore, it would be ten-years before a 5% increase in inclusion rates would be realized.

If USDE evaluation and monitoring of  state’s Performance Plans for Indicator 5, part A and each state’s Annual Performance Report (APR) remains deficient for pushing increased inclusion rates, then professional development may be the better hope for reform of LRE initiatives.  Research suggested professional development is most effective when teachers engage in instructional inquiry within the context of collaborative professional communities that focus upon instructional improvement and student achievement. Research suggested great value in professional development that ensures teachers support of each other in understanding policies and research that guide effective practices related to inclusive programs (Baker, Gersten, Dimino, & Griffiths, 2004; McLeskey & Waldron, 2004; Vaughn & Coleman, 2004; and Waldron & McLeskey, 2009).  Crucially, research indicated the positive impact of creating and implementing embedded professional development intended to improve instructional practices that lead to improved outcomes for individuals with exceptional learning needs and their families (Beverly, Santos, & Kyger, 2006; Bryant, Linan-Thompson, & Ugel, 2001; Englert & Rozendal, 2004; Monteith, 2000; Powers, Rayner, & Gunter, 2001; Voltz, 2001; and Voltz, Brazil, & Scott, 2003).

  Traditional theorists contend current teacher preparation standards are sufficient for promoting the education for students with special needs in the least restrictive environment (Andrews, Carnine, Coutinho, Edgar, Forness, Fuchs & Fuchs, 2000). By contrast, Reformists or Substantial Re-conceptualists, contend explicit standards are requisite for ensuring inclusive education for students with special needs in the least restrictive environment (Paul & Paul, 1996; Andrews, et. al., 2000). To improve rates of inclusive educational practices, states would benefit from requiring explicit teacher preparation standards related to the effective implementation of LRE mandates rather than merely comprehending the meaning of LRE.  However, understanding the adverse impact of assessment systems upon diverse students and how to effectively monitor and adjust instruction based on assessments FOR learning, may be more powerful for encouraging change. 

Systemic approaches that utilize diverse evaluations allow all stakeholders a better opportunity to make decisions based on holistic data.  Diverse data analysis offers the opportunity to more reliably monitor and adjust plans for student, classroom, and school-wide improvement.  This systemic approach provides an opportunity that is not reliably possible through analysis of a solitary, end-of-year test.  The latter “simply cannot provide sufficient formative information to guide teaching and learning throughout the year (Herman, 2010, p 3).

An embrace of the learning for all mission will be more valuable for promoting LRE initiatives.   A coherent, data-based accountability system is identified as a correlate of Effective Schools Research (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011). More important than understanding the continuum or cascade of services (Deno, 1962; Reynolds, 1970) available to diverse students is the ability to navigate or advocate for an assessment system promoting a coherent network that provides the opportunity to develop, implement, and utilize data-based accountability. The lack of collaborative and deliberate consideration and respect for the student’s present level of academic achievement and functional performance results in problematic decisions that adversely effects the integrity of the placement process.

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (October 31, 2019) Utilization of assessments options can increase inclusion better 

       than mandate knowledge. [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

References:

Andrews, J. E., Carnine, D. W., Coutinho, M. J., Edgar, E. B., Forness, S. R., Fuchs, L.,

et al. (2000). Bridging the special education divide. Remedial and Special Education, 21(5), 258-260, 267.

Connor, D. (2007). A (Brief) History of Inclusion in the USA. Supporting Inclusive

            Classrooms: A Resource. NYCTFQIS

Darling-Hammond, L. (2005). Developing professional development schools: Early lessons,

challenge, and promise. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Professional development schools: Schools for developing a profession (pp. 1-27). New York: Teachers College Press.

Eichenger, J., & Downing, J.E.  (2002). Instruction in the general education environment. 

In J. Downing (Ed.) Including students with severe and multiple disabilities in typical classrooms:  Practical strategies for teachers (2^nd ed.).  Baltimore:  Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.

Elbaum, B.; Vaughn, S.; Hughes, M.T.; Moody, S.W.; Schumm, J.S. (2000).  How

            reading outcomes of students with disabilities are related to instructional grouping

            formats:  A meta-analytic review.  In R. Gersten, E.P. Schiller, S. Vaughn (eds.),

            Contemporary special education research:  Synthesis of the knowledge base on

            critical instructional issues.  (pp. 105-136).   Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (1995). Inclusive schools movement and the radicalization of

special education reform. In J. M. Kauffman and D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), The inclusion of full inclusion: A comprehensive critique of a current special education bandwagon (pp. 213242). Austin, TX: ProEd.

Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1997). Inclusion and school reform: Transforming

 America’s classrooms. Baltimore: Paul Brookes. 

Reynolds, M. C. (1989). An historical perspective: The delivery of special education to

mildly disabled and at-risk students. Remedial and Special Education,10 (6),7-11.

Reynolds, M.C., & Birch, J.W. (1977). Teaching exceptional children in all America’s

 schools. Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.

Sindelar, P.T., Brownell, M.T., Correa, V., McLeskey, J., Bishop, A., Smith, D.,

Tyler, N., & Waldron, N., (2001). The Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education: Assessing the Quality of Preservice Teacher Preparation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, St. Petersburg, FL.

Implementing a Disability Studies Approach to Inclusive Education

 

            The effective inclusive classroom exhibits diversity, creativity, flexibility, and compatibility between students.  Instruction provided by the teacher sparks achievement by all regardless of the students’ diverse current level of academic achievement and functional performance.  The successful “differentiated classroom” (Tomlinson, 1999) includes instructional staff that consistently:

·       Studies the diversity of students for planning purposes

·       Utilizes assessment processes to inform instruction as an ongoing process

·       Caters to multiple areas of intelligence

·       Uses data, whereby student success is measurable: recording where the student began and ended

·       Includes student choice-making to link their interests with instructional relevance

            Teachers need to transmit information to students in clearly stated objectives as efficiently as possible.  To optimize student success in the least restrictive environment (LRE) a disability studies approach to inclusive practices (Valle & Connor, 2011) will be helpful.  To begin, teachers need to effectively incorporate the Nine Principles of Universal Design for Instruction:

1. Equitable Use: Teaching techniques that serve all students of varying abilities.  For example, using Text to Speech software for hard of hearing students.

2. Flexibility of Use: Meeting each student’s preferences and abilities through differentiated teaching design.  For example, providing students with choices that suit their preference in presenting work (verbal presentation or written paper)

3. Simple and Intuitive: Planning the teacher’s presentation to promote understanding regardless of student’s knowledge, experience, language skills, or current concentration level.  For example,   express clear oral or written instructions.  Asking students to read aloud or paraphrase instructions to be sure they understand expectations.  Another example is presenting clearly stated outcomes through teacher-provided rubrics

4. Perceptible Information: Communicating information successfully regardless of the child’s sensory abilities.  For example, allowing students to audiotape the class or providing large print for visually impaired students

5. Tolerance for Error: Planning for different learning paces and skills.  For example, providing one on one tutoring to help students build necessary skills.  Reading Recovery or Reading Rescue are two early intervention programs that emphasize 1:1 interventions.

6. Low Physical Effort: Reducing the need for students following instruction to exert physical effort.  For example, within an environment, desks and chairs should provide enough space for a wheelchair to move with ease and without barriers.

7. Size and Space for Approach and Use: Allowing adequate space for approach, reach, manipulation, and use, regardless of the student’s size, mobility, and posture.  For example, varying desk sizes to ensure suitability for taller students or providing smaller chairs and desks for more petite students.

8. A Community of Learners: Encouraging interaction between classmates during instructional activities.  For example, planning for group work, class discussions, and peer teaching.

9. Instructional Climate: Creating an inviting and comfortable classroom environment that optimizes learning and time on task.  For example, expressing respect for diversity with a class motto displayed prominently on the classroom walls

            Teachers seeking to implement a disability studies approach to inclusive practices find it essential to follow a process for teaching grounded in universal design for learning:

·       Identify course goals and content.

·       Become familiar in advance with each student and identify diversity within the group.

·       Apply universal design principles.

·       Implement universal design process.

·       Apply universal design assessments.

·       Monitor student learning through formative feedback, including student participation.

·       Modify instruction based on feedback

            Teachers seeking to implement a disability studies approach to inclusive practices effectively utilize Bloom’s Taxonomy for planning and questioning.  Knowledge of Bloom’s Taxonomy allows educators to plan and ask questions that require students to respond with increasingly higher order thinking skills (HOTS).  Planning for students to think critically when responding to questions and using higher cognitive thinking during activities promotes learning and optimizes success with future problem-solving.  

            Teachers seeking to implement a disability studies approach to inclusive practices accommodate all learning styles.  Teachers must plan and utilize different approaches and strategies to optimize learning for all.  By utilizing brain-based learning strategies (Jensen, 1998), teachers exhibit an acceptance that students have diverse learning preferences.  For example, auditory-learners prefer learning opportunities that allow them to hear, visual-learners prefer learning opportunities that allow them to see demonstrations or read material, and tactile/kinesthetic learners prefer learning that allows them to touch or utilize the environment. 

            Teachers seeking to implement a disability studies approach to inclusive practices respect Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligence.  Everyone exhibits strengths and less-developed competencies.  The ideal for respecting diversity in the inclusive classroom is to identify each student’s strengths and planning to utilize these areas to increase motivation, build relevance, and mitigate frustration or anxiety when increasing skills related to less-developed competencies.  “We succeed in enterprises which demand the positive qualities we possess, but excel in those which can also make use of our defects” (de Tocqueville, n.d).  Eight areas of diverse intelligence identified by Gardner (2011) include:

1.     Verbal-Linguistic

2.     Visual-Spatial

3.     Logical-Mathematical

4.     Bodily-Kinesthetic

5.     Musical

6.     Interpersonal

7.     Intrapersonal

8.     Naturalistic

            Teachers seeking to implement a disability studies approach to inclusive practices recognize that students may exhibit a preference for learning environment and conditions.  Knowledge of these preferences help teachers predict, to some degree, which learning environments will be most effective for diverse students.  Effective teachers consider room temperature, desk and seating arrangements, wall design, lighting, sound, and other factors that may impact each students overall comfort.  

            Thoughtful and purposeful planning create conditions for success.  Planning pyramids, curriculum maps, and calendars, allow delivery of instruction throughout the school year that reflective recognize the diversity of students and need to link to relevance.  Planning backward from the destination point to the starting point is a proven strategy (Covey, 1989).

To summarize, each student presents unique strengths, preferences, and needs.  Students will differ in cultural background, performance level, learning pace, learning style, areas of interests, and other flexible variables.  Classrooms designed around the students increase their involvement.  Teachers seeking to implement a disability studies approach to inclusive practices willingly provide different activities that range from simple to complex, thereby addressing each student’s needs.  Careful and purposeful planning of long-term, medium, and short-term outcomes allow teachers to more effectively deliver and assess instruction.

            Since the authorization of PL 94-142 (1975) a student with disabilities has the civil right to be placed within his or her least restrictive environment as appropriate to his or her needs (IDEA, 2004).  General education teachers will increasingly have more diverse children, some with mild or moderate disabilities in their classroom.  Effective inclusive classroom teachers must be prepared for the challenges of diverse students.  Educational planning is a starting point within the teaching process.  Teachers seeking to implement a disability studies approach to inclusive practices adapt strategies to meet the needs of students with disabilities.  For example, planning for alternate modes of communication is one way a teacher accommodate diverse students.  When a child is currently less capable of responding to a writing task, the teacher can elicit his or her response verbally, through speech to text software or through a private conversation.  When a teacher reviews any student's IEP and uses formative data to understand that child’s present level of academic achievement and functional performance, subsequent goals and objectives for all students are more valid, reliable, and realizable.   

References

UDI Online Project. (2009). Examples of UDI in online and blended courses. Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Retrieved from: http://udi.uconn.edu/index.php?q=content/examples-udi-online-and-blended....

Valle, J., & Connor, D. (2011). Rethinking disability: A disability studies approach to inclusive practices. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (November 22, 2015) Implementing a disability studies approach to inclusive

               education.[Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/