inclusive!education!courseenhancement! module › wp-content › ... · ceedarcenter!...

Inclusive Education Course Enhancement

Module Part 1: Historical Perspectives of Disability and Education,

Inclusive Lives, and Definitions of Inclusive Education

Facilitator’s Guide

2015

CEEDAR Center Part 1: Inclusive Education Anchor Presentation

1

Contents Introduction to the Evidence-‐Based Behavioral Interventions Course Enhancement Module ...... 2

Purpose ........................................................................................................................................... 2

Audience ......................................................................................................................................... 2

Facilitator’s Guide ........................................................................................................................... 3

Evidence-‐Based Materials .............................................................................................................. 3

Six-‐Part Organization ...................................................................................................................... 3

Opportunity to Learn ...................................................................................................................... 4

Resources ....................................................................................................................................... 4

Materials ........................................................................................................................................ 5

In This Guide ................................................................................................................................... 5

Part 1: Slides and Supporting Facilitator Notes and Text ............................................................... 6

This facilitator’s guide is intended for use with the following resources: • Presentation slides These resources are available on the Course Enhancement Modules (CEM) web page of the CEEDAR Center website (ceedar.org).


2

Introduction to the Evidence-‐Based Behavioral Interventions Course Enhancement Module The Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform (CEEDAR) Center developed this Course Enhancement Module (CEM) about inclusive education to assist faculty at institutions of higher education (IHEs) and professional development (PD) providers in the training and development of all educators. The CEM about inclusive education is a compilation of resources intended for use in the development and enhancement of teacher and leadership education courses as well as for PD programs for practitioners. The resources are designed to support professional learning opportunities for stakeholders invested in the support and instruction of students with disabilities and others who struggle with learning to meet college-‐ and career-‐readiness standards. Through this CEM, participants will gain a thorough understanding of inclusive education and how it is related to meeting the needs of all students, not just students who receive special education services. In addition, participants will learn how to provide access to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) to students with disabilities, design and implement various inclusive support strategies for a variety of students, value educational equity for all students, and collaborate and problem solve with other professionals and educators, families, and students to develop and implement effective inclusive practices.

Purpose This CEM was designed to build the knowledge and capacity of educators in the selected topic. The module can be adapted and is flexible to accommodate faculty and PD provider needs. The anchor presentation and speaker notes can be used in their entirety to cover multiple course or PD sessions. Alternatively, specific content, activities, and handouts can be used individually to enhance existing course and/or PD content. Audience The audience is intended to be teacher and leader candidates within pre-‐service programs at the undergraduate or graduate levels and/or district teachers and leaders participating in in-‐service professional learning opportunities. The facilitator’s guide is designed as a blueprint to support faculty and PD providers charged with providing teachers and leaders with training in a selected topic. The training can be conducted by faculty and by state and local PD providers.


3

Facilitator’s Guide The facilitator’s guide consists of anchor presentation slides with a script to support facilitators as they present the content and learning activities within the anchor presentation. Facilitator notes and talking points are included. The speaker notes are intended as a guide for a facilitator who is using the PowerPoint slides and may be modified as needed. Reviewing the entire guide prior to facilitating the training is highly recommended. Evidence-‐Based Materials There are now three converging areas of support for inclusive practices. Empirical research findings from the past four decades document the positive outcomes of inclusive education for students who do and do not experience disability. Inclusive education was born from a civil rights perspective, which continues to guide the implementation of inclusive practices, including system of supports and social model of disability perspectives. Another area of support comes from federal law, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004 and supporting case law. Six-‐Part Organization The learning resources are organized into six main parts:

• Part 1: Historical Perspectives of Disability and Education, Inclusive Lives, and Definitions of Inclusive Education. Part 1 contains an overview of the historical perspectives of disability and education for students with disabilities, a discussion of how separate and special is not better, and key definitions and quality indicators of inclusive education.

• Part 2: Rationales for Inclusive Education. Part 2 begins by providing clarification of terminology that will be used throughout the remainder of the module. This part also explores a series of rationales (e.g., guiding principles, values, empirical evidence, legal foundations) that led the field to focus on inclusive education for ALL students, including those with extensive and complex support needs.

• Part 3: Inclusive Service Delivery. Part 3 discusses the following components of inclusive service delivery models: school-‐wide implementation of multi-‐tiered system of supports (MTSS) that strive to improve the academic and behavioral outcomes for ALL students; collaborative teaming between general educators, special educators, related services personnel, paraeducators, parents, administrators, and students themselves; and supportive and visionary administrative leadership.


4

• Part 4: Access to Core/General Education Curriculum and Settings (Part 1). Part 4 acknowledges that for ALL students, including those with disabilities, access to core/general education curriculum in inclusive school contexts and settings requires key practices in place such as ecological/contextually based assessment, person-‐centered planning, differentiated instruction, and Universal Design for Learning (UDL). Part 5: Access to Core/General Education Curriculum and Settings (Part 2). Part 5 discusses the specific roles and responsibilities of team members in relation to supporting students’ meaningful access to and participation with curriculum; the principle of partial participation; curricular, instructional and ecological adaptations to support access and participation; and finally, embedded instruction as an evidence-‐based practice (EBP) to deliver high-‐quality, specialized instruction in inclusive settings. The section begins with a discussion of the roles, responsibilities, and strategies employed by an effective inclusion facilitator to implement high-‐quality, effective inclusive services for students with the most intensive and complex support needs. Inclusion facilitators are defined as credentialed teachers who develop and implement inclusive education. Inclusion facilitators are often special education teachers by trade, but can also be general education teachers or other school team members.

• Part 6: Peer Relationships and Supports in Inclusive Classrooms. Part 6 discusses ways to promote peer interactions and relationships between students with disabilities and their classmates in the general education classrooms. These are understood to play key roles in learning and quality of life (Carter, 2011; Carter, Bottema-‐Beutel, & Brock, 2014; Carter, Cushing, & Kennedy, 2009). Within the professional literature describing the administrative, logistical, and curricular practices to achieve successful inclusion, there is a clear mandate to offer students with disabilities the same opportunities for social learning, participation, and friendship that are available to all students (Halvorsen & Neary, 2009; TASH, 2010).

Opportunity to Learn Learning activities are embedded throughout each part of the anchor presentations. All activities are optional and may be adapted to meet the needs of a particular audience. Resources The following resources are provided for use in delivering the anchor presentation:

• Facilitator’s guide (this document) • Presentations


5

All of these materials may be used and adapted to fit the needs of the training context. When sharing the content, please use the following statement: “These materials have been adapted in whole or in part with permission from the CEEDAR Center.” Materials The following materials are recommended for training and associated activities:

• Chart paper • Sharpie® markers for chart paper • Regular markers at each table for name cards • Post-‐it® Notes • Timer • Pens at each table • Internet connection for website links embedded in presentations

Necessary materials will vary based on the content and activities selected, which will depend on the audience and the format of the course or PD session. In This Guide The rest of the guide provides the slides and speaker notes to support facilitators as they present the content and learning activities included in the anchor module. Reviewing the entire guide prior to facilitating the training is highly recommended.

CEEDAR Center Part 1: Inclusive Education Anchor Presentation 6

Part 1: Slides and Supporting Facilitator Notes and Text Slide 1—Inclusive Education for All Students: Hour 1

We begin this module about inclusive education for all students with an overview of the historical perspectives of disability and education for students with disabilities, a discussion of how separate and special is not better, and key definitions and quality indicators of inclusive education.

Inclusive*Educa.on*for*All*Students**

*Hour*1*

Project(#H325A120003(

Historical*Perspec.ves*of*Disability*and*Educa.on,*Inclusive*Lives,*and*Defini.ons*of*Inclusive*Educa.on*

(



Slide 2—Vineland Training School

People with disabilities have always been a part of humankind, but their treatment across time and societies is neither homogenous nor static. Ancient Greeks considered people with disabilities to be inferior, with Plato, in The Republic, recommending that “deformed” children be put away in some “mysterious unknown places.” Early Christians saw disability as a means of purification and obtaining grace, whereas ancient Jews viewed disability as punishment. However, by the 16th century, many Christians came to believe that people with disabilities were possessed by evil spirits and, therefore, should be subjected to physical and/or mental pain to exorcise these demons. By the 19th century, social Darwinism led people to oppose assisting people with disabilities, thinking that those with disabilities were “unfit” and their procreation would impede natural selection. This even gave rise to the eugenics movement in the United States and abroad, where people with disabilities were forcibly sterilized (Munyi, 2012). The eugenics movement, while born in the United States, was rapidly adopted and implemented in Nazi Germany on a terrible scale just a few decades later.

With the changing nature of disability, a constant has been the segregation of people with disabilities into family homes or institutions throughout most of human history. In these settings, people with disabilities were cared for to varying degrees, but were denied opportunities for education, independent living, and a meaningful place in mainstream society. The picture on this slide is of the Vineland Training School in New Jersey, which opened in 1888 with the aim of caring for and “training” people with disabilities in work skills such as farming and craftsmanship. Unfortunately, many people who were poor did not speak English well or came from

Vineland(Training(School(


8

broken families wound up in these institutions. Once institutionalized, they became prisoners and were subject to abuse, neglect, forced participation in medical studies, and sterilization. Many people were never freed from these institutions (Smith & Wehmeyer, 2012). Slide 3—Prevailing View Mid-20th Century

Day-‐to-‐day life in institutions was not understood by the public at large; instead, most believed that it was best for the family and the person with a disability to be raised in institutions. By the mid-‐20th century in the United States, it was accepted and common practice to immediately remove a newborn baby who was born with a disability from the family and place the infant in the care of an institution.

As seen in the quote above, Aldrich and many others advocated that assignment to institutions be as immediate as possible. He went so far as to outline a specific technique for separating the newborn from the family: preventing the mother from seeing the infant, discussing the problem with the father and possibly close relatives or a clergyman, encouraging the mother to accept the decision to institutionalize, and arranging placement in a public institution or temporarily in a boarding home (Aldrich, 1947). Once placed in an institution, this person typically spent the remainder of his or her life in an institution, with little to no contact with their family. The other half of this slide is a grave marker for a person who lived, and died, at a mental institution.

Prevailing*View*Mid/20th*Century*

“There&is&only&one&adequate&way&to&lessen&all&this&grief,&fortunately&a&measure&which&most&experienced&physicians&will&agree&to,&and&that&is&immediate&commitment&to&an&ins:tu:on&at&the&:me&of&diagnosis”&&(Aldrich&1947,&p.&128).&


9

Slide 4—Willowbrook State School

The Willowbrook State School opened in New York in 1947 as the biggest state-‐run institution in the United States for people with intellectual disabilities. Although it was designed to house 4,000 children, more than 6,000 children were living there by 1965. The school had earned a reputation as a warehouse for New York City’s children with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Most of these children had presumably been abandoned by their families, as was the practice of the day. They were, therefore, without any protection because their care and oversight was left entirely to the institution.

In 1965, Robert Kennedy made an unannounced visit and toured the facility. He proclaimed that people here were “living in filth and dirt, their clothing in rags, in rooms less comfortable and cheerful than cages in which we put animals in a zoo.”

In response, Geraldo Rivera conducted a series of investigations at Willowbrook uncovering overcrowding, unsanitary conditions, and physical and sexual abuse of residents by the school’s staff. The exposé, “Willowbrook: The Last Great Disgrace,” was the result of this investigation. [Extension activity: Watch the documentary]

Willowbrook)State)School)


10

Slide 5—Response From Willowbrook The response from Willowbrook to these accusations was indicative of the low expectations for people with disabilities in their care. Rather than taking the criticisms as a call to action, Willowbrook rested on their beliefs and knowledge that providing care for people with disabilities is “extraordinarily difficult,” that highly trained and professional attendants and personnel are nearly impossible to find, and that budgets to fund and maintain the facility were all significantly lacking. This response rests on the assumption that there are no alternatives to the institution. However, is this the case? What questions may be asked instead? Was more money needed? Was better staff needed? Or was a complete re-‐examination of the policies and practices of institutionalizing people with disabilities needed?

Slide 6—Christmas in Purgatory

Following closely on the heels of Kennedy’s visit to Willowbrook, Burton Blatt and Fred Kaplan toured five institutions for people with disabilities just before Christmas in 1965. They took pictures of what they saw using a hidden camera attached to Kaplan’s belt. They released Christmas in Purgatory: A Photographic Essay on Mental Retardation to the public in 1974. The section above comes from the introduction to their book. The following pages show images captured from Kaplan’s belt camera.

A full link to the book: http://mn.gov/mnddc/parallels2/pdf/undated/Xmas-‐Purgatory.pdf

Response'From'Willowbrook'

“But,&we&know,&as&well&as&do&thousands&of&others&who&have&been&associated&with&ins7tu7ons&for&the&mentally&retarded,&that&what&Senator&Kennedy&claimed&to&have&seen&he&did&see.&In&fact,&we&know&personally&of&few&ins7tu7ons&for&the&mentally&retarded&in&the&United&States&completely&free&of&dirt&and&filth,&odors,&naked&pa7ents&groveling&in&their&own&feces,&children&in&locked&cells,&horribly&crowded&dormitories,&and&understaffed&and&wrongly&staffed&facili7es.”&

Christmas)in)Purgatory)

“Although)our)pictures)could)not)even)begin)to)capture)the)total)and)overwhelming)horror)we)saw,)smelled,)and)felt,)they)represent)a)side)of)America)that)has)rarely)been)shown)to)the)general)public)and)is)li:le)understood)by)most)of)us”)(Bla:)&)Kaplan,)1974).)


11

Slide 7 [No commentary provided on the pictures, since they will convey different emotions and ideas to different viewers. It is recommended that the speaker silently click through each picture, pausing for 5-‐10 seconds at each slide so that participants can view them.]

Slide 8


12

Slide 9

Slide 10


13

Slide 11

Slide 12


14

Slide 13

Slide 14


15

Slide 15

Slide 16


16

Slide 17

Slide 18


17

Slide 19

Slide 20


18

Slide 21

Slide 22


19

Slide 23

Slide 24


20

Slide 25

Slide 26


21

Slide 27

Slide 28


22

Slide 29

Slide 30


23

Slide 31

Slide 32—Out of Sight, Out of Mind

Sarason (1972) in reflecting on the conditions of institutions, proposed this idea that assumptions and expectations are at the heart of society’s treatment of people with disabilities. At a similar point in time, Bengt Nirje (1969) and Wolf Wolfsenberger (1972) developed the principle of normalization, which meant that people with disabilities should have available to them the same patterns and conditions of everyday life available to people without disabilities. These principles, along with the ideas of treating people with disabilities with dignity and respect, were the foundations for inclusive education and the introduction of special education law.

Out$of$Sight,$Out$of$Mind$

“As$the$years$went$on,$it$became$increasingly$clear$to$me$that$the$condi6ons$I$saw$.$.$.$[in$the$ins6tu6on]$were$not$due$to$evil,$incompetent$or$cruel$people$but$rather$to$a$concept$of$human$poten6al$and$an$a?tude$toward$innova6on$which$when$applied$to$the$mentally$defec6ve$[sic],$result$in$a$self@fulfilling$prophecy.$That$is,$if$one$thinks$that$defec6ve$[sic]$children$are$almost$beyond$help,$one$acts$toward$them$in$ways$which$then$confirm$one's$assump6ons”$(Sarason,$1972).$


24

Slide 33—P.L. 94-142

This law, the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (EHCA), was passed in 1975 and was the first time in history that the education of students with disabilities was mandated. This law has since been reauthorized several times, most recently in 2004, and is now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA). EHCA was a groundbreaking law because before its passage, students with disabilities were either not educated at all or were taught in very segregated settings. In fact, when considering the law, Congress found that there were 1 million American children in the 1970s who had been entirely excluded from the education system due to having a disability. Millions more had limited access to the education system.

This groundbreaking law had four purposes explicitly articulated in the law, as stated above. Implicit in the law were aims to improve how children with disabilities were identified and educated, to evaluate the effectiveness of these efforts, and to provide due process protections for children and families. The law provided a dramatic shift from the status quo. It came at a time when public outrage over Willowbrook and Christmas in Purgatory were fresh in the public’s mind, along with the broader social movement for civil rights. It is difficult to know if such a revolutionary law, if proposed today, would be adopted.

P.L.$94'142$

Four%purposes%of%P.L.%94/142%%

•  “to%assure%that%all%children%with%disabili=es%have%available%to%them%.%.%.%a%free%appropriate%public%educa=on%which%emphasizes%special%educa=on%and%related%services%designed%to%meet%their%unique%needs%%

•  to%assure%that%the%rights%of%children%with%disabili=es%and%their%parents%.%.%.%are%protected%%

•  to%assist%states%and%locali=es%to%provide%for%the%educa=on%of%all%children%with%disabili=es%%

•  to%assess%and%assure%the%effec=veness%of%efforts%to%educate%all%children%with%disabili=es”%%


25

Slide 34—Impact of Institutionalization on Special Education Service Delivery

Institutionalization, lack of dignity, harm, and discrimination toward people with disabilities have been with us through most of human history. For generations, society as a whole failed to challenge the assumptions inherent in institutions; it was not until the deplorable conditions were brought to light through television and photography that the public as a whole was even aware of the issue. Today, most of the public continues to believe that people with disabilities do, in fact, need something different—something special. The public, as a whole, continues to believe that special education provides that something special and that worthy outcomes result from segregating students with disabilities into remedial and separate track classes and schools. These assumptions are so ingrained in our practices that we rarely challenge them, just as institutionalization went unchallenged for centuries. Today, people with disabilities are one of the remaining minority groups who face persistent discrimination and segregation in education. Is it because people with disabilities are really more like plums than apples, using the analogy above?

Impact'of'Ins,tu,onaliza,on'on'Special'Educa,on'Service'Delivery'

•  A"green"apple"is"more"like"red"apples"than"different."

•  A"person"with"a"disability"is"more"like"people"without"disabili8es"than"different."

–  Kathie"Snow"


26

Slide 35—Instructional Models

Historically, students with disabilities have also received instruction and been exposed to curriculum in a different manner than typically developing peers. Initially, special educators adhered to a developmental approach and focused on the need for students to learn prerequisite skills prior to moving on to new more advanced skills. A functional approach to curriculum has also been utilized to teach skills needed for daily living and future adult life. In practice, both approaches have lead to lowered expectations for students with disabilities. Best practices today focus on implementing instructional approaches that provide access to, meaningful participation in, and progress in age-‐appropriate, grade-‐level curriculum. Both academic and functional skills that will lead to quality of life outcomes are to be taught.

Instruc(onal,Models,

•  Developmental+model.+

•  Func1onal+model.+

•  Current+focus+on+access+to,+par1cipa1on+in,+and+progress+in+the+general+educa1on+curriculum—both+academic+and+func1onal+skills.+


27

Slide 36—Developmental Model Within the developmental mode of instruction, students are expected to master specific developmental cognitive prerequisite skills before they progress learning new, more advanced skills.

A hallmark of this approach was determining a person’s mental age and-‐old has a mental age of a 3-‐year-‐old due to the severity of her intellectual disability, that 14-‐year-‐old was taught skills like completing puzzles and stringing beads together, skills that a 3-‐year-‐old would learn.

With this approach, while teaching literacy skills, students are often required to master the identification of letter sound correspondence before they are introduced to identifying whole words. They are required to identify individual letters before being taught that letters make words, words make sentences, and sentences convey communication of ideas. For students who are not able to master basic skills, such as alphabet recognition or decoding, they may remain stagnated at the lower level, continually being taught over a period of years the same prerequisite skills. For some, this has limited the scope and range of literacy skills they are exposed to such as being taught to access books on CD, reading community sight words, and learning and using symbols to write via a communication device (Browder & Spooner, 2006; Copeland & Keefe, 2007). One undesired outcome of this model has been that students, particularly those with the most significant disabilities, were being taught age-‐inappropriate skill using age-‐inappropriate materials.

Developmental+Model+

•  Focus&on&teaching&skills&that&are&cogni1ve/mental5age&appropriate.&&

•  Expecta1on&that&student&masters&specific,&prerequisite&skills&before&being&taught&new&more&advanced&skills.&&

•  Lead&to&use&of&readiness&approach—students&have&to&prove&they&have&mastered&a&set&of&developmental&skills,&regardless&of&whether&they&were&not&chronologically&appropriate.&


28

Furthermore, this model has resulted in the “readiness” approach which requires that students prove they have mastered a set of developmental skills, regardless of how age inappropriate and functionally inappropriate these may be. If we waited for any student with or without disabilities to be “ready,” we would be denying valuable educational opportunity. Slide 37—Functional Model With the functional model of instruction and curriculum, the goal is to facilitate the student’s ability to function as independently as possible in a variety of environments. The focus is to teach skills needed for daily living and future adult life.

Although there is nothing inherently wrong with teaching functional skills, there have been a number of concerns with the implementation of this curriculum model. First, one outcome has been a hyper-‐focus on cooking, cleaning, and money skills at the exclusion of other skills that lead to quality of life outcomes (e.g., employment opportunities, social relationships, durable friendships). Another concern is that functional skills are often taught in non-‐real world settings, and consequently, students may not generalize and employ these skills in real-‐life settings. Finally, the functional model of curriculum has often provided a rationale for continuing to provide educational services in separate, self-‐contained special education settings (Ryandak et al., 2014). Special educators have expressed concerns that the functional skills needed for independence are incompatible within the content and contexts of general education curriculum. This reflects a misperception of functional curriculum and standards-‐based curriculum approaches being viewed as mutually exclusive.

Func%onal)Model)

•  Focus&on&teaching&skills&needed&for&daily&living&and&adult&life.&

•  Led&to&hyper8focus&on&cooking,&cleaning,&and&money&skills.&

•  Skills&selected&not&ones&that&lead&to&quality&of&life&(e.g.,&employment&opportuni>es,&social&rela>onships,&friendships).&

•  Skills&o@en&taught&in&non8real&world&seBngs—concern&about&issues&of&generalizability.&


29

Slide 38—Access to and Participation in Standards-‐Based General Education Curriculum

IDEA 2004 mandates that students with disabilities be involved in the general curriculum “in order to (i) meet developmental goals, and to the maximum extent possible, the challenging expectations that have been established for all children, and (ii) be prepared to lead productive and independent lives, to the maximum extent possible” (§682[c][5][A]). NCLB 2001 also requires that students with disabilities have access to the general education curriculum.

Focus now is to teach meaningful, functional and academic, practical, chronologically age-‐appropriate skills in natural, inclusive contexts, including the standards based grad-‐ level curriculum. IDEA 2004 requires that individual education program (IEP) goals and benchmarks be aligned to the appropriate grade-‐level standards. Specific evidence-‐based practices (EBPs) and strategies to create access to core/general education curriculum and settings (i.e., ecological assessment, person-‐centered planning, Universal Design for Learning (UDL), differentiated instruction, teaming between educators, and embedded instruction) will be presented in detail in a later section of this module.

Access%to%and%Par-cipa-on%in%%Standards1Based%General%Educa-on%Curriculum%

•  Current'focus'in'line'with'IDEA'2004'and'NCLB'2001.'

•  Facilitate'access'to'and'meaningful'parBcipaBon'and'progress'in'the'general'educaBon'curriculum.'

•  Do'not'to'need'to'choose'between'teaching'academic'or'funcBonal'skills;'rather,'the'focus'is'on'teaching'relevant'academic'and$funcBonal'skills.'


30

Slide 39—Is Separate or Special Better? The IEP team comprises invested partners, including parents, general education teachers, special education teachers, and administrators. While developing an IEP for a student, this team must decide where the student should be educated so that the student will obtain the greatest benefits of special education services. Placements can include education in separate schools, separate classrooms, and general education classrooms. Myths about where and how services can best be provided to serve students have been developed. This list presents some of the most common promises of segregated special education (Causton-‐Theoharis, Theoharis, Orsalt, & Cosier, 2011). These promises are often articulated to parents and teachers while an IEP team is making a placement decision. Over the next few slides, we will take a closer look at these promises and determine how these were manifested in real classrooms over the 6-‐year time frame of the study by Causton-‐Theoharis and colleagues (2011).

Is#Separate#or#Special#Be/er?#

Promises(of(segregated(special(educa2on:(•  Community((i.e.,(sense(of(belonging).(•  Distrac2on=free(environments.(•  Specialized(curriculum/instruc2on.(•  Behavioral(supports.(•  Specialized(training(of(teachers.(


31

Slide 40—Issues of Community

Causton-‐Theoharis and colleagues (2011) looked at the extent to which community was developed for students served in segregated classrooms. They found that contrary to promises that segregated classrooms promote community and protect student’s from assaults to self-‐esteem, these classrooms showed a real lack of community, with no real efforts to promote community evident, and routine instances of verbal and physical abuse occurring between students in these classrooms. It is important to note that these findings represent a number of classrooms over a 6-‐year period but certainly not every classroom. However, the theme of lack of community is too common to be overlooked.

Slide 41—Distraction-‐Free Environment Another promise of segregated classrooms investigated by Causton-‐Theoharis and colleagues (2011) was the provision of a distraction-‐free environment for learners in these classrooms. Many people believe that students with disabilities are highly distractible and that educating them in a separate setting, with fewer students and more staff, will help reduce distraction and promote learning. Causton-‐Theoharis and colleagues(2011) found, instead, that there were numerous regular distractions in these classrooms, ranging from staff talking to each other, staff and students frequently coming and going, and students being distracted by the behaviors of other students.

Issues%of%Community %%•  No#evidence#of#formal#community2building#ac5vi5es.#•  No#specific#a:en5on#to#establishing#connec5ons#to#peers#

through#coopera5ve#learning#or#partner#work.#•  Instead,#students#in#self2contained#classrooms#are#regularly#

verbally#abused#and#physically#a:acked#by#peers#in#their#self2contained#classroom#and#shunned#by#general#educa5on#peers.#

•  Diminished#self2worth#for#students#(Fitch,#2003)#

•  Examples:#o  Study#cubicles#for#students#with#au5sm#spectrum#disorder##

(ASD)—students#regularly#cannot#see#or#communicate#with#each#other.#

o  Lining#up#to#go#to#lunch,#students#are#clustered#at#the#door.#Ayana#hits#Keith#(who#had#flipped#her#off#earlier#in#class).##Paraeducator#says,#“Stop#that!”#Keith#says,#“What,#I#didn’t#touch#her!#I#had#one#hand#behind#my#back,#and#I#was#telling#her#I#could#beat#her#up#with#one#hand.”#

Distrac(on+Free.Environment.

•  Instruc(onal,staff,regularly,talking,to,each,other:,–  Adults,talking,loudly,to,students,and,each,other;,side,

conversa(ons,interrup(ng,instruc(on.,

•  Staff,are,coming,and,going,all,the,(me:,–  Therapists,,staff,coming,and,going,,which,causes,visual,

disrup(ons.,•  Students,are,distrac(ng:,

–  Student,Joe,physically,and,forcefully,moved,to,(meBout,room.,,Joe,was,screaming.,Miles,saw/heard,this,,said,,“Joe.”,Joe,screamed,,“Help,me!,You’re,hur(ng,me!”,The,paraeducator,told,Miles,,“Joe,is,fine.”,Miles,covered,his,ears.,Joe,con(nues,to,scream,for,7,minutes,(“Help,me!,Get,me,out,of,here!”).,Miles,did,not,work,during,these,7,minutes,and,con(nued,to,be,visibly,upset,for,30,minutes,aSer,the,incident.,

,


32

Slide 42—Curriculum & Instruction

Similarly, Causton-‐Theoharis and colleagues (2011) found that these self-‐contained settings failed to deliver a set of curriculum and instruction that was personally relevant, meaningful, and differentiated for students in these segregated settings. Most general education classrooms comprise students from a narrow age and grade band; however, it is not unusual for segregated classrooms to educate students in multiple grades together (e.g., In some instances, particularly in rural areas, a single a K-‐3 classroom may house students ages 6 to 21). The challenges of providing grade-‐relevant standards in these settings are, therefore, numerous. When individual student needs are considered, such as needs for communication and physical assistance, these challenges of differentiating in these classrooms become nearly insurmountable. In a comparative study of segregated and inclusive classrooms, Kurth & Mastergeorge (2012) found that students in segregated classrooms spent, on average, 30% of their instructional time on a break, or otherwise receiving no instruction, compared to 7% in general education settings. Students with disabilities in general education classrooms likewise had adapted grade-‐level curriculum in 62% of observations, compared to less than 1% in segregated settings, where most students were taught using curriculum with no relevance to the general education standards. Perhaps unsurprisingly, these authors found that students with severe disabilities educated in general education settings performed significantly higher on tests of achievement compared to students educated in segregated settings, despite the finding that the two groups had comparable intelligence scores.

Curriculum(&(Instruc.on(

•  Large&por)ons&of&)me&were&non/instruc)onal.&•  Instruc)onal&)me&was&not&very&effec)ve:&

o  Lack&of&Structure:&snack&)me&that&happens&sporadically&and&lasts&a&long&)me.&

o  Context/free/meaningless&curriculum:&grade&level&standards&missing,&worksheets&with&liCle&opportunity&for&inquiry/based&or&coopera)ve&learning.&

o  Not&individualized&and&not&par)cularly&relevant:&similar&worksheets,&ac)vi)es&regardless&of&grade,&interest,&ability,&IEP&goal.&

o  Heterogeneous&groupings&(e.g.,&ages,&grades,&disability;&Fitch,&2003).&

o  No&evidence&of&improved&student&performance&(Foster&&&Pearson,&2012).&


33

Slide 43—Behavioral Supports

Causton-‐Theoharis and colleagues (2011) found that the provision of behavior supports was another promise of segregated settings, namely that staff in these settings had the skills, knowledge, and tools to effectively manage the behavior problems common to students with more significant disabilities. These authors found, however, that because segregated settings failed to provide relevant or interesting materials and activities and relied on threats, the provision of behavior supports in these settings was lacking.

The use of seclusion and restraint in segregated settings is equally troubling. Perhaps because there is little oversight in these classrooms and few people know what happens in them, students with disabilities are more likely to experience restraint and seclusion than any other group of children. The Nightline story (linked above) provides some interesting and troubling findings about the ramifications of seclusion and restraint.

[Note: Restraint and Seclusion, Hear Our Stories, a 27-‐minute documentary by Dan Habib, may also be used; available at http://stophurtingkids.com/the-‐film/]. In sum, because segregated settings typically lack structure, have meaningless and uninteresting curriculum, and have an overall lack of structure, it is entirely possible that these settings are creating, rather than diminishing, behavior problems in children.

Behavioral*Supports*•  Frequent(non*compliance((usually(because(the(

work(was(not(relevant(or(interes9ng,(communica9on(supports(were(not(provided,(tasks(were(long(and(unpredictable).(

•  Frequent(use(of(threats((e.g.,(“Do(you(want(your(lunch?(Well,(then,(you(beDer(do(your(work!”).(

•  Frequent(use(of(seclusion(and(restraint.(•  Nightline.(•  Threats,(physical(restraints,(meaningless(

curriculum,(lack(of(structure(are(CREATING(and(not(reducing(nega9ve(behaviors.(

(


34

Slide 44—Specialized Training A further promise of segregated settings, not addressed by Causton-‐Theoharis and colleagues (2011), is that educators working in segregated settings have a special set of skills that enable them to better teach children with disabilities. However, research findings (e.g., Giangreco, Doyle, & Suter, 2012) found that often, paraeducators are the primary group delivering instruction to students with disabilities. Paraeducators are also called paraprofessionals, teacher aides, instructional assistants, and so on. These are well-‐meaning people who work with students in instructional capacities under the supervision of certified teachers but are not required to have any teaching certification themselves. In both segregated and general education settings, paraeducators have been found to provide the bulk of instruction to students with disabilities; when special education teachers do deliver instruction, it is usually in the form of whole-‐group instruction. With these findings in mind, it is impossible to find that educators in segregated settings actually have more or greater skills than those in inclusive settings.

Specialized*Training*

•  Paraeducators+as+primary+instructors:+–  Students+overwhelmingly+taught+by+paraeducators+(e.g.,+periodic+interac<on+with+special+educa<on+teacher+of+1+to+3+minutes,+usually+involving+teacher+explaining+what+paraeducator+should+do+next).+

•  Special+educa<on+teacher:+– Mostly+whole+group+(e.g.,+reading+a+book+aloud).+


35

Slide 45—TED Talk

Photojournalist Dan Habib did not give much thought to disability until his son Samuel was born with cerebral palsy. In this TED talk given in April 2014, the disability-‐rights advocate explains his family's fight to ensure an inclusive education for Samuel and how inclusion benefits not just Samuel and those who are included, but also all of us. The video can be viewed at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izkN5vLbnw8

After viewing the video, consider the following questions to guide a discussion with participants:

How does inclusive education benefit Samuel? All children? Society as a whole?

How does inclusive education improve school culture and climate? How does inclusive education raise expectations and improve belonging?

TED$Talk:$Disabling$Segrega1on$

•  Watch&TED&talk&Disabling)Segrega-on)by&Dan&Habib&


36

Slide 46—Definition of Inclusive Education

This definition of inclusive education highlights that students with disabilities have the opportunity to attend their home schools of attendance or charter or other schools of choice (e.g., magnet schools for the arts or the sciences) within the district because these options are available for students without disabilities. By students attending their home/neighborhood schools, inappropriate placement of too many students who have IEPs at a particular school can be avoided. One goal is to have the natural proportion of students with disabilities in our schools and communities. It also emphasizes the difference between inclusive education and mainstreaming or integration in that the students are members of the general education class and do not belong in another separate, special class. There is no special education classroom, although there may be places for enrichment or supplemental instructional activities that are used for all students.

Defini&on(of(Inclusive(Educa&on(

The$most$basic$defini0on$of$inclusive$educa0on$is$as$follows:$“Students$with$disabili0es$are$supported$members$of$chronologically$age=appropriate$general$educa0on$classes$in$their$home$schools,$receiving$the$specialized$instruc0on$delineated$by$their$IEPs,$within$the$context$of$the$core$curriculum$and$general$ac0vi0es”$(Halvorsen$&$Neary,$2009,$p.$1).$


37

Slide 47—Important Characteristics of Inclusive Education

Sailor & McCart (2014) and the work of the Schoolwide Integrated Framework for Transformation (SWIFT) Center (www.swiftschools.org) advocate for a school-‐wide reform effort that does not just focus on special education. In other words, there must be a school-‐wide approach to inclusive education which utilizes a multi-‐tiered system of supports (MTSS) and services to provide academic and behavioral instruction to all students. These efforts require collaboration and shared responsibility among general and special educators. Aspects of MTSS will be discussed in further detail later in this module.

As previously noted, all students are valued members of chronologically age-‐appropriate general education classrooms. Students move with their peers to subsequent grades in school as indicated by their IEPs. Supports and services are provided to the student in natural contexts (i.e., within general education settings). Consequently, there is consideration of the full array of services to meet individual needs including supplementary aids and instructional services (e.g., for communication, mobility sensory) provided in the general education classroom/settings through a trans-‐disciplinary team approach. No special classroom exists, except for integrated enrichment and supplemental instructional activities for all students, not just those with IEPs. Finally, the type of disability or severity of disability does not prevent a student from being included. This is a zero-‐rejection approach. There are

Important)Characteris0cs)of)Inclusive)Educa0on)

•  School&wide+approach+to+delivery+of+supports+and+services,+not+a+program+or+place+(Sailor+&+McCart,+2014).+

•  ALL+students+are+valued+members+of+chronologically+age&appropriate+general+educaFon+classrooms.+

•  No+special+classroom+exists,+except+for+integrated+enrichment+and+supplemental+instrucFonal+acFviFes+for+all+students+(Halvorsen+&+Neary,+2009).+

•  All+means+all;+disability+type+or+severity+does+not+prevent+student+from+being+included.+


38

also no prerequisites for a student to be included. For example, students are not required to be achieving at or near the grade-‐level standard within the appropriate grade level curriculum to be included. All means all. Slide 48 This quote is from the court decision for the court case Oberti v. Board of Education of Borough of Clementon School District, 1993. In this decision, the Third Circuit Appellate Court ruled that the school district had violated Rafael Oberti’s right to continue in the general education classroom as the least-‐restrictive environment by determining that he be placed in a segregated special education classroom.

The decision states: “We construe IDEA's mainstreaming requirement to prohibit a school from placing a child with disabilities outside of a regular classroom if educating the child in the regular classroom, with supplementary aids and support services, can be achieved satisfactorily. In addition, if placement outside of a regular classroom is necessary for the child to receive educational benefit, the school may still be violating IDEA if it has not made sufficient efforts to include the child in school programs with nondisabled children whenever possible. We also hold that the school bears the burden of proving compliance with the mainstreaming requirement of IDEA, regardless of which party brought the claim under IDEA before the district court . . . . We emphasize that the Act does not require states to offer the same educational experience to a child with disabilities . . . . To the contrary, states must address the unique needs of a disabled child, recognizing that the child may benefit differently from education in the regular classroom that other students . . . . Inclusion is a right, not a privilege for a select few.”

“Inclusion*is*a*right,*not*a*privilege*for*a*select*

few.”*(Ober;*v.*Board*of*Educa;on*of*Clementon*School*District,*1993)*


39

Additional case law and judicial standards of review will be discussed further in subsequent sections of this module. Slide 49—Quality Indicators of Inclusive Education

Definitions of inclusive education are useful in developing a common language. It is important for school administrators to be able to examine their schools and school practices to determine the extent of inclusive practices currently in place and have a checklist from which to build and strengthen those practices. Causton and Theoharis (2014) identified six indicators of inclusive education that school principals (or other administrators) can use to determine if inclusive education is being implemented effectively.

First, any one classroom should reflect the natural population of students with disabilities in the school. For example, if 11% of the school students have an IEP, the principal could expect to see 11% of students with disabilities in a given classroom. An inclusive classroom will not have half of the class made up of students with disabilities. Having a greater number of students with disabilities in one setting increases the density of need, making the class more like a special education setting and constraining resources to one setting. Because principals are often very involved in making staff and student schedules, this is a particularly important indicator.

Second, inclusive classrooms will often have more than one educator present. This may be one special and one general education teacher who

Quality(Indicators(of(Inclusive(Educa4on(

•  Natural'propor*ons.'•  Team'teaching.'•  Community'building.'•  Differen*a*on.'•  Students'do'not'leave'to'learn.'•  Engaging'instruc*on.'


40

have equitable responsibility for all students. Or it may be another co-‐teaching configuration so that one teacher provides content instruction and the other provides adaptations. It could also include a general education teacher and a paraeducator, with the paraeducator focusing her attention on a few students but assisting all students in the classroom.

Third, inclusive classrooms embrace the idea that people learn in different ways. Teachers act on this principle by ensuring that students feel connected to one another and to their teachers. Teachers facilitate friendships, disperse students with IEPs around the classroom (rather than sitting together), use cooperative learning strategies, and engage in other activities that build this community of learners.

Fourth, in an inclusive classroom, it is clear that learners with different academic, social, and behavioral needs share one learning environment. The content is differentiated so that students work on similar goals in different ways. For example, all students are working on math problems, with some students using manipulatives, some drawing out their answers, some checking their answers on calculators, and some using peer buddies.

Fifth, students do not leave an inclusive classroom to learn. Instead, therapies and services occur within the context of the general education classroom. For example, rather than leaving the classroom for speech therapy, the speech therapist comes to the general education classroom and works on speech goals while participating in a social studies activity. Last, inclusive classrooms are engaging, active classrooms. Teachers do not


41

rely on lectures, and students are not expected to passively sit and learn. Teachers plan instruction with the range of learning styles and needs in mind. Students work together, moving around and talking to one another. Adults move around the classroom, providing assistance as needed to individual and small groups of students. This content was produced under U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Award No. H325A120003. Bonnie Jones and David Guardino serve as the project officers. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or polices of the U.S. Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any product, commodity, service, or enterprise mentioned in this website is intended or should be inferred.

2630_07/14

inclusive!education!courseenhancement! module › wp-content › ... · ceedarcenter!...

Documents