what the research says on inclusive education

7/28/2019 What the Research Says on Inclusive Education

1/4

What the Research Says: Inclusive EducationAchieves Results

Best practice emphasizes integrated therapy and services rather than either a pullout direct

service model or a multidisciplinary approach with separate and non-overlapping service

delivery plan[1]. When documented as necessary, students are pulled-out for specialized

services only when the same skill cannot be taught in the general ed setting, not the reverse

proposed by this model, which is pulled-in to visit peers in the general ed setting.

Part-time is different, not just less[2]. Children are placed at higher risk for exclusion

under models which misuse the term inclusion to define visiting or forced interaction with

peers without disabilities. It is well documented that children are very aware of, and

impacted by, the social construct of the school - specifically class and subject grouping.

Splitting from heterogeneous groups for specialized instruction is an accepted part of the

school day in which all children participate. Bringing children to the school is not. This

practice serves to damage both individual students sense of belonging and achievement, as

well as the whole sense of community within a class and school.

Students labeled as having severe and multiple disabilities may appear to have such

challenging impairments, and their needs appear to be either so basic (e.g. simple

communication skills; appropriate manipulation skills; learning to sit) or so complex (e.g.

requiring nursing intervention, G-Tubes, etc) that teaching these students in highly

academic, typical classrooms seems improbable, and at the least, impractical. YET

research and best practice shows that this type of student learns more with the almost

constant stimulation and numerous and spontaneous opportunities to interact with peers.

Special educators, no matter how highly motivated or skilled, cannot provide the necessary

ongoing stimulation in self-contained classrooms.[3]

Students labeled with severe disabilities who receive special education services in classes


2/4

alongside their non-disabled peers achieved higher gains on the Scales of Independent

Behaviors (SIB) and Assessment of Social Competence (ASC) that those in the self-contained

group. These findings challenge the common assumption that that self-contained settings

result in superior gains on individual IEP related skill domains.[4]

As long as students are in segregated buildings and classrooms, the most typical

interactions observed will be with teachers, therapists and other service providers.

Assigning students without disabilities responsibilities such as tutoring and helping actually

interferes with the evolution of natural peer relationships[5], and fosters the notions of

charity and pity; not value, belonging, and achievement.

Best practice in systemic educational reform increases the capacity of systems to provide

quality education that achieves results for all students in the least restrictive environment.

Colorado (71.09%), Vermont (81.63%), New Hampshire (79.17%) Oregon (74.64%), are

considered true models for education, and are states with the highest percentage of

students with disabilities educated with non-disabled peers[6]. The districts in these states

have successfully changed the role of the intermediate unit from providing direct services to

providing technical and programmatic support, and moving students previously served in

the intermediate or regional unit back to their local school districts.[7]

Best practices models that have been successfully implemented in school districts across

the United States include the consultant approach, teaming, and co-teaching.[8] The

professional expertise of trained special education staff would be much better used in these

approaches through a model that embraces the provision technical and programmatic

support to general education settings in their home schools.

Families (and often educators) are more likely to be supportive of inclusion if socialization

is an important educational goal for the student, if the student had relatively few support

needs in the areas of behavior support or specialized services, and if the student had

previously participated in general education.[9]

Systems change is most effective when there is longitudinal planning across all levels of the

system toward education in the least restrictive environment. This includes, but is not


3/4

limited to: State policies, such as a placement-neutral special education finance formula;

noncategorical personnel certification, or certification standards requiring classes in

inclusion or collaboration; effective use and training of personnel; effective statewide

testing programs; the presence of other State-level reform efforts that are compatible with

systems change (e.g., pre-referral, site-based management, needs-based programming);

and, State efforts to close separate schools and/or regional special education programs and

transition students back to their home districts[10]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Meyer, L.M., Eichinger, J., & Downing J. Program Quality Indicators (PQI): A Checklist of

Most Promising Practices in Educational Programs for Students with Severe Disabilities,

Revised Edition (1992) The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps (TASH).

[2] Schnorr, R.F. Peter? He Comes and Goes: First Graders Perspectives on a Part-Time

Mainstream Student (1990) Journal of the Association of Persons with Severe Handicaps,

15, 231-240.

[3] Downing, June E. (2002) Educating Students with Diverse Strengths and Needs

Together. In Including Students with Severe and Multiple Disabilities in Typical Classrooms.

pp.4-5. Baltimore : Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

[4] Fisher, M., & Meyer, LH. (2002) Development and Social Competence After Two Years

for Students Enrolled in Inclusive and Self-Contained Educational Programs. Research and

Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 27, 165-174.

[5] Kishi, G.S., & Meyer, L.H. (1994) What Children Report and Remember: A Six-Year

Follow-Up of the Effects of Social Contact of Peers with and Without Severe Disabilities.

Journal of the Association of Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 277-289.

[6] 23rd Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of IDEA To Assure the Free

Appropriate Public Education of All Children with Disabilities (2001), US Department of

Education Table AB2, p. A-98.


4/4

[7] Statewide Systems Change for Students with Severe Disabilities, OSEP Annual Report,:To

Assure the Free Appropriate Public Education of All Children with Disabilities 1996.

[8] Resource: Gartner, A., & Lipsky, D. D. (1997). Inclusion and school reform: Transferring

America 's classrooms. Baltimore : P. H. Brookes Publishing.

[9] Palmer, D.S., Fuller, K., Arora, T., & Nelson, M. (2001). Taking sides: Views on inclusion

for their children with severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 67, 4, 467-479.

[10] Statewide Systems Change for Students with Severe Disabilities, OSEP Annual Report:

To Assure the Free Appropriate Public Education of All Children with Disabilities 1996.

what the research says on inclusive education

Documents