the impact of inclusion on student achievement, socio...

1

Running Head: THE IMPACT OF INCLUSION ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

The Impact of Inclusion on Student Achievement, Socio-Emotional Development, and Teacher

Stress

A final paper submitted to Dr. W. Okshevsky

Stephanie T. Flynn

P.O. Box 1523

Botwood, Newfoundland

A0H 1E0

In partial fulfilment of the requirements of Education 6390

For the degree of Master of Education

Faculty of Education

Memorial University of Newfoundland

St. John`s

Newfoundland and Labrador

March 26th

, 2012

2

THE IMPACT OF INCLUSION ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

Abstract

As more students with exceptionalities are educated within the general education classroom,

concerns that these inclusionary practices will impact the academic achievement and socio-

emotional development of these students, as well as their non-exceptional classmates, continues

to grow. This paper investigates both the positive and negative effects of inclusion on the

academic achievement and socio-emotional development of students with exceptionalities as

well as their non-exceptional classmates in general education classrooms. In addition, the

increase in stress levels for teachers in inclusive classrooms will be discussed. The results of this

literature review are varied, but show no overall impact of inclusive settings on the academic

achievement of both the students with exceptionalities and their non-exceptional classmates.

There is some evidence that the effectiveness of the implementation of inclusion depends on the

adequate provision of resources, teacher training, and support, but since not all the articles

discuss this measure, it is impossible to generalize this claim over all inclusive situations.

Furthermore, the results indicated that although students without exceptionalities in inclusionary

settings experienced some gains in socio-emotional development in some situations, the students

with exceptionalities had a much more varied response, meaning that some students were

impacted positively while other students were impacted negatively. It is clear that there are many

other factors than inclusion that impact academic achievement and socio-emotional

development, and all these factors must be considered on an individual basis to ensure the correct

placement of each child.

3


Table of Contents

Page

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………. 2

Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………………….. 3

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………... 4

Operational Definitions………………………………………………………………………….. 6

Inclusion………………………………………………………………………………….. 6

Exceptionality……………………………………………………………………………. 6

Student Achievement…………………………………………………………………….. 7

Teacher Stress……………………………………………………………………………. 7

Achievement of Students without Exceptionalities………………………………………………7

Achievement of Students with Exceptionalities…………………………….………………….. 12

Effects of Inclusion on Teacher Stress………………………………………………………….. 15

Implications…………………………………………………………………………………….. 18

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………… 23

References……………………………………………………………………………………… 26

4


The Impact of Inclusion on Student Achievement, Socio-Emotional Development, and

Teacher Stress

There has been a conscious effort in today’s society to educate students with

exceptionalities in the regular classroom alongside their peers. Previously, students with

exceptionalities were often placed in separate classrooms, or even separate schools, to receive

their educational programming from specialized special education teachers. However, in recent

years, there has been a conscious commitment to make Canadian society as a whole more

inclusive to individuals with disabilities, beginning with Canadian schools (Hutchinson, 2010).

As the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador’s Department of Education states:

An inclusive culture starts from the premise that everyone in the school- students,

educators, administrators, support staff, and parents- should feel they belong, realize their

potential, and contribute to the life of the school. In an inclusive culture, diverse

experiences, perspectives and gifts are seen to enrich the school community (Inclusive

School Culture, 2011).

According to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982), individuals with

disabilities cannot be discriminated against due to any physical or mental disability. Many

individuals feel that, by educating students in a segregated setting, we are discriminating against

them based on their disability. In addition, “Canadian schools are legally responsible for

preparing children and adolescents with disabilities to participate meaningfully as educated

adults in a democratic society” (Hutchinson, 2010, p. 20). Advocates for inclusion feel that

students cannot be adequately prepared to be independent members of society through the

seclusion of non-inclusive educational experiences. However, those opposing inclusion “worry

that under the inclusion movement, many of the needs of students with learning disabilities and

related mild disabilities will not be met” (Lerner & Johns, 2009, p. 127). In addition, “many

schools continue to resist the pressure to become more inclusive because they are concerned that

to do so will have a negative effect on the academic progress of other pupils and/or lower

5


academic standards” (Florian, Rouse, Black-Hawkins, & Jull, 2004, p. 115). Additionally,

placing all students in a regular classroom, regardless of the degree of their exceptionality, has

major implications for their general education teachers, as they now have a plethora of strengths,

needs, and behaviours to deal with on a daily basis. This can undoubtedly create stress on the

teacher.

The movement towards inclusive schools evokes much controversy in all

stakeholders involved in the education of our students. According to Ruijs, Van der Veen, and

Peetsma (2010), by including these children in the regular education classroom:

Children with SEN [special education needs] could take up more of the teacher’s

attention at the expense of “typical” children, the general level of education in the class

might be lowered and children with SEN might distract the other children in the class. On

the other hand, there might be positive academic effects because more adaptive education

is used and there are more teacher assistants in classes with SEN students. Regarding the

socio-emotional effects, it could be reasoned that children without SEN in inclusive

classes become more aware and less anxious about differences between people. They

might also develop fewer prejudices against and more friendships with children with

SEN. On the other hand, children without SEN could copy undesirable behaviour from

children with SEN (p. 352).

This purpose of this paper is to address the impact of inclusion on the academic

achievement and socio-emotional development of school-age children with exceptionalities and

their classmates. Literature examining studies that indicate both the positive and negative

impacts of student placement in inclusive classrooms on their overall academic achievement and

socio-emotional development will be analyzed. Furthermore, the impact of inclusion on the

stress levels of those teachers implementing such classroom practices will be discussed. It will

then be determined if research supports a conclusive answer to the questions posed in this paper.

It is evident that much of the research in this area is mixed, with a significant amount of

research indicating no significant impact on student achievement, with slight positive effects on

the socio-emotional development of the classmates of students with exceptionalities in the

6


inclusive classroom. With regards to the stress levels of inclusive teachers, meeting the diverse

needs of students with exceptionalities in the regular classroom without adequate support,

resources, and training, leads to an overall increase in stress and anxiety levels. This is quite

apparent in the research surrounding this topic in education.

Operational Definitions

Due to the ambiguity that accompanies many of the terms used in this research, the main

terms and concepts must be defined before attempting to answer the posed questions.

Inclusion

Inclusive programs are “those in which students, regardless of the severity of their

disability, receive appropriate specialized instruction and related services within an age-

appropriate general education classroom in the school they would attend if they did not have a

disability” (Havey, 1998, p. 2). Still, inclusion should be viewed as a process that involves whole

school reorganization over time (Hornby, 2009). Because there are so many variations of

inclusion occurring in schools, it is essential to define the parameters by which this paper will

approach the term. For the purposes of this paper, inclusion will refer to the full inclusion of

students with exceptionalities in the general education classroom 100% of the time. If the studies

being investigated do not follow these parameters, and only partially include students with

exceptionalities in the general education classroom, this type of inclusion will be referred to as

“partial inclusion” or “pull-out programming”.

Exceptionality

When a student is said to have an exceptionality, this can mean many things. It can refer

not only to a student’s disability, but also to their giftedness, or extreme ability in a certain area.

For the purposes of this paper, an exceptionality refers to any disability, or combination of

7


disabilities that a child has, including learning disabilities, emotional and behavioural disorders,

developmental delays, physical disability, communication disorders, hearing impairments, and

visual impairments.

Student Achievement

In this paper, student achievement will be discussed in regards to both the academic

development and socio-emotional development of the students being studied. For the purpose of

this paper, achievement is “concerned with the progress made by learners over time. Thus it is

possible for students to have achieved well (given their starting point), but not to have reached

the standard as pre-specified by the performance criteria” (Rouse & Florian, 2006, p. 489).

Therefore, these students may not have met the provincially prescribed curricular outcomes, but

they can still show progress in their overall achievement levels. As long as the student has made

progress in the area being studied, their achievement levels are increasing.

Teacher Stress

Stress has many facets and can take on many forms. For the purpose of this paper, teacher

stress is the body’s response to feelings of anxiety, frustration, worry, or anger that is caused by

the inclusion of students with exceptionalities in the general education classroom. Prolonged

feelings of stress can lead to teacher burnout, or “a feeling of professional failure as a result of

the gap between the actual feelings of personal professional competence to which the teacher

aspires” (Talmor, Reiter, & Feigin, 2005, p. 217).

Achievement of Students without Exceptionalities

Over the years, there has been legitimate concern over the inclusion of students with

exceptionalities into the regular classroom, and the effect it has on the achievement levels of

their classmates without exceptionalities who are being educated in the same setting. These

8


concerns, and how they affect both the academic achievement and socio-emotional development

of the students without special education needs being educated in the regular classroom, have

been analyzed in many studies. The research on this matter is inconclusive, and shows that in

many cases, there is no statistically significant impact on the academic achievement levels of

students without exceptionalities in the inclusive regular classroom. Therefore, academic

achievement levels do not usually go up or go down in these situations. In some studies, the

academic achievement of the students without exceptionalities increases, however these

improvements are usually very small, and are often explained by high levels of support, teacher

training, and resources, as well as positive teacher perspectives. Although some evidence

suggests that positive effects of inclusion on academic achievement can be attributed to adequate

resources, teacher training, and support, this claim cannot be generalized over all inclusive

situations as such parameters were not clearly defined in all the articles referenced. Also,

students tend to experience increases in socio-emotional development, with significant increases

in positive attitudes towards students with exceptionalities, as well as increased interactions with

these students. The following studies investigate the impact of inclusion on the academic

achievement and socio-emotional development of students without exceptionalities.

In a literature study conducted by Salend and Duhaney (1999), the impact of inclusion on

students with and without disabilities and their educators was examined, and the results indicated

that:

Placement in an inclusion classroom does not interfere with the academic performance of

students without disabilities with respect to the amount of allocated and engaged

instructional time, the rate of interruptions to planned activities, and the student’s

achievement test scores and report card grades (p. 120).

According to the results of this study, being educated in an inclusive classroom does not mean

that the academic achievement levels of students without exceptionalities will necessarily go up,

9


as the advocates for inclusion so often claim. In this literature review, it was concluded that

teacher success with the implementation of inclusive practices in their classroom was attributed

to “administrative support, resources, and training they have received to implement effective

inclusion programs” (Salend & Duhaney, 1999, p. 124). This implies that any attempts for

educators to try to effectively implement inclusive classroom practices without these resources,

support, and training, will have difficulty. This could possibly explain why the results of this

literature review were so varied and why many studies investigated concluded that there were no

overall effects of inclusion on the academic performance of students without exceptionalities;

they may not have had access to adequate resources, training, and support. However, due to the

lack of evidence discussing such resources in each particular study reviewed in this article, this

claim cannot be substantiated. Also, with regards to socio-emotional development, the study

showed that the students without disabilities had an overall positive view of inclusion and they

believed that inclusion helped them become more accepting, understanding, and tolerating of

differences amongst individuals. In addition, they experienced “a greater awareness and

sensitivity to the needs of others; greater opportunities to have friendships with students with

disabilities; and an improved ability to deal with disability in their own lives” (Salend &

Duhaney, 1999, p. 120). These positive effects of inclusion on the socio-emotional development

of students without exceptionalities are extremely important in preparing them for a world that is

full of diverse people, and will help create a society that is accepting of all people, no matter how

different they are. Although the results of this study showed that inclusion had no overall effect

on the academic performance of students without exceptionalities, there were significant benefits

to the socio-emotional development of these students.

10


Contrary to the findings of Salend and Duhaney (1999) which found no overall effect of

inclusion on student achievement, a study by Bowers (1997) concluded that being educated in

inclusive classrooms had significant positive effects on the academic achievement of students

without exceptionalities. The students’ math and English scores were compared before and

during the inclusion implementation over a three year span. In this situation, it was clearly stated

that there were many resources provided for all stakeholders involved. The teachers were

provided with extensive training opportunities and professional presenters in the area of

inclusion education were brought into the school to train the staff, and spend time in their

classroom to help teach them skills to provide a successful inclusive classroom. In addition,

teachers were given professional leave to attend inclusion conferences and were given the

opportunity to visit other schools that were already implementing inclusion successfully. It was

stated that a tremendous amount of resources and materials, as well as staff and parent support,

were provided throughout the implementation process. Bowers (1997) attributed the successes of

this inclusionary movement to the support and resources provided for both teacher training and

the inclusionary classrooms themselves. It is quite evident that the successful implementation of

inclusive education relies heavily on adequate resources, teacher training, and support for the

endeavour. Any lack of these resources could make it difficult to effectively implement inclusive

practices, although this is merely an assumption since no such claims were made in this article.

A study conducted by Gandhi (2007), explored the relationship between inclusion and

reading achievement of students without disabilities by analyzing a nationally representative

dataset of grade 3 students in the United States. The results of this study concluded that “being

educated in an inclusive classroom, as opposed to a non-inclusive general education classroom,

does not contribute to lower or higher reading achievement for non-disabled students” (Gandhi,

11


2007, p. 102). In general, non-exceptional students who are educated in inclusive classrooms

perform as well in reading as non-exceptional students who are educated in non-inclusive

classrooms. This shows that any concerns regarding exceptional students negatively impacting

the reading levels of their classmates can be lessened, as there were no negative effects reported

in this study. This corresponds with many other studies that show no effect on a student’s overall

academic achievement levels when they are educated in inclusive classrooms. It is impossible to

make a claim about whether a lack of resources, training, or support were the cause of the non-

effect of inclusion on student achievement in this study, as this parameter was not identified

throughout the article.

Rujis et al. (2010) investigated whether there is a relation between inclusive education

and the academic achievement and socio-emotional development of students without

exceptionalities by administering questionnaires and looking at the student’s language and math

test scores. This study “indicates that no overall relation between inclusive education and the

academic achievement of typical students. Furthermore, there was no apparent differential effect

of inclusive education on the socio-emotional functioning of more and less intelligent typical

students” (Rujis et al., 2010, p. 385). Once again, there were no effects on the academic

achievement of students without exceptionalities due to being educated in an inclusive

classroom. In addition, they concluded that there was no overall effect on the socio-emotional

development of students with exceptionalities that were placed in inclusive classrooms. Although

there is no mention of the available resources, training, or support available to the teachers in this

study, they do suggest that “there might have been pre-existing differences between inclusive

and non-inclusive classes” (p. 386), which makes it difficult to conclude that these effects were

caused by inclusion alone. More importantly, this study looked at different types of

12


exceptionalities that can be included in the general education classroom, and found no

meaningful relationship between the type of exceptionality and the academic achievement and

socio-emotional functioning of students without exceptionalities. Therefore, it did not matter

how severe the exceptionality was that the student had, it still had no effect on the academic

achievement or socio-emotional development of students without exceptionalities within the

inclusive classroom. This challenges any concerns that people can have that students with more

severe exceptionalities will have a more negative effect on the achievement levels of students

without exceptionalities in inclusive settings, due to the nature of their disability.

Achievement of Students with Exceptionalities

Not only has there been extensive research on the effect of inclusion on the achievement

of students without exceptionalities in the inclusive regular classroom, there have also been many

studies investigating the effect on the achievement levels of students with exceptionalities in the

regular classroom. Once again, the results were varied, showing only slight increases in student

achievement levels in some studies, with the majority showing no effect on both the academic

achievement levels and socio-emotional development of students with exceptionalities in

inclusive settings. Many studies that show increases in student achievement levels attribute this

success to adequate teacher training, resources, and support however, since not all studies

referenced in this paper discuss these parameters, this claim cannot be generalized to include all

inclusive settings. It is implied that inclusive classrooms that lack resources, support, and

properly trained teachers, could be the cause of a lack of effect on student achievement.

However, these claims cannot be substantiated since no study that was referenced made this

claim or provided evidence. The following studies investigate the impact of inclusion on the

academic achievement and socio-emotional development of students with exceptionalities.

13


Salend and Duhaney (1999) investigated the impact of inclusion on students with

exceptionalities and, through their extensive literature review, concluded that the studies

performed on this topic provided mixed results, although some studies indicated that:

Placement in inclusion programs has resulted in improved educational outcomes for

students with disabilities, including improved standardized test scores, reading

performance, mastery of IEP goals, grades, on-task behaviour, motivation to learn, and

greater success in making the transition to adulthood (p. 118).

On the other hand, they recognized that not all inclusive classroom settings provided

individualized instruction to the students with exceptionalities, and some students with mild

disabilities, such as learning disabilities, actually performed better when they received their

instruction through pull-out programming that was delivered by a special education teacher. This

literature review provided evidence supporting the inclusion of students with exceptionalities in

the general education classroom, as in some cases, they had higher achievement levels than those

in segregated classroom settings. However, they also discussed the fact that, in situations where

there was progress made, extensive supports and resources were available to the general

education teacher. With regards to the socio-emotional development of students with

exceptionalities in inclusive settings, some of the studies in this literature review found increases

in social interactions with their non-exceptional peers, more social support, and more long

lasting and richer friendships with their peers. However, “research also indicated that these

interactions are often assistive in nature, and tend to decline as the school year progresses”

(Salend & Duhaney, 1999, p. 118). If the relationships are “assistive in nature”, although they are

beneficial to the student with exceptionalities for the duration of the friendship, they will not

realistically last throughout the years as a substantial friendship, and in many cases did not even

last throughout the school year. The students were taking on more of a “caretaker” role, and this

14


is not a natural friendship that would likely be created in situations where interactions were not

provoked between children with exceptionalities and their non-exceptional peers.

According to Odom, Schwartz, and ECRII Investigators (2002), “research has shown that

young children with disabilities can make at least as much developmental progress in inclusive

programs as they do in non-inclusive programs” (as cited in Cross, Traub, Hutter-Pishgahi, &

Shelton, 2004, p. 169). It is evident in this situation that an inclusive setting does not have an

overall negative effect on the students with exceptionalities, nor does it have an overall positive

effect. In this case, it would be impossible to make a claim about the effect of availability of

resources, teacher training, or support on the non-effect on academic achievement in these

inclusive classrooms, as they are not addressed in this study. According to the authors in this

study, in inclusive general education classrooms, the student’s educational programming should

not change, rather the delivery of this programming changes. Brucker (1994) believes that “the

goals and objectives can be partially or wholly met in the regular classroom, even if they are

quite different from the goals of the rest of the class” (p. 581). In order to do this effectively,

teachers must receive specialized training in the accommodations and delivery of this

programming for exceptional students. In addition, support from a special education teacher

would help alleviate some of the questions and uncertainties that teachers so often face when

teaching in an inclusive classroom. Unfortunately, this training, support, and resources are

oftentimes not readily available for teachers to avail of, making it quite difficult to effectively

adapt the delivery of the programming to suit the strengths and needs of the students with

exceptionalities within the inclusive general education classroom.

15


Effects of Inclusion on Teacher Stress

The role of the general education teacher is becoming more exhaustive as each day

passes. With the inclusionary movement that is taking place in schools across Canada, not only

are teachers responsible for delivering the provincially prescribed curricular outcomes to their

students, they are also responsible for meeting the diverse needs of the students with

exceptionalities in their general education classroom. This change in classroom dynamics across

Canada has undoubtedly created stressors among teachers, and these effects have been addressed

by many studies in this area. According to a study conducted by Brackenreed (2008) that

surveyed 269 teachers in north-eastern Ontario on their perceived stressors created by teaching in

inclusive classrooms, “the most stressful were those perceived as interfering with a teacher’s

instruction time, including ever-increasing amounts of paperwork, extracurricular demands, and

interpersonal conflicts. Other stressors identified include workload, time management, lack of

general support, and insufficient teacher preparation” (p. 132). In addition, general educators in

inclusive settings are concerned that the education of students without exceptionalities might

suffer, that they won’t be able to meet the severe health, medical, and behavioural needs of the

students with exceptionalities, there won’t be enough funding to support personnel and

instructional needs, the general education curriculum is too rigid and content specific to

accommodate all learners, and there won’t be enough time available to effectively collaborate

among staff members (Salend & Duhaney, 1999). It is quite apparent that there are many facets

of inclusive education that create stress and uncertainty among general educators faced with

educating all students within their classroom. When many of these concerns mentioned above are

combined in an inclusive setting, the teacher often cannot deal with so many issues all at once,

16


with few support networks available. Exposure to these concerns for a prolonged time with no

resolutions of the issues will leave teachers feeling stressed out and frustrated.

Teachers in today’s society take on many roles in the classroom, school, and community

alike. According to Farber (1984):

Modern society defines the teacher’s multiple missions as an instructor, a moral educator,

and a character builder, and expects teachers to play the roles that family, school and

religious agencies filled earlier. Failing to fulfill these expectations, teachers are blamed

for not doing their jobs and may develop feelings of inadequacy that result in burnout (as

cited in Fejgin, Talmor, & Erlich, 2005, p. 32).

When a teacher accepts a position at a school, they must realize that their job goes far beyond

merely delivering the curriculum outcomes. Many teachers have ideals of how an effective

teacher should conduct their classroom, and when they don’t feel that they are living up to the

type of teacher they can and should be, they begin to feel stressed. The pressure that teachers feel

to create inclusive classrooms is immense, and when their actual inclusive experiences do not

live up to their ideals of how inclusive classrooms should be conducted, feelings of inadequacy

develop. In addition, the many roles that teachers take on often clash with one another. This is

particularly true in inclusive settings, as they want to ensure that they are meeting the curricular

outcomes for their students without exceptionalities, while also providing an environment that is

appropriate and conducive to learning for the students with exceptionalities that are also in the

classroom. Additionally, Tinzmann, Jones, Fennimore, Bakker, Fine, and Pierce (1990) discuss

the need for teachers to act as “mediators” in inclusive classrooms, which is quite different from

the traditional role of teachers. In previous years, teachers controlled the information that was

being transferred in the classroom, and dominated the dynamics of the classroom. Many teachers

have difficulty with this shift in roles from dominating the classroom, to acting as a mediator,

17


thereby becoming frustrated and stressed with this movement. These conflicting roles often lead

to an increase in teacher stress levels.

One study by Talmor, Reiter, and Feigin (2005) investigated the factors in inclusive

classrooms that related to teacher stress and burnout by surveying 330 primary teachers to

discover their attitudes towards inclusive education and their overall relation to teacher burnout.

These researchers concluded that the greatest factors that caused stress for the teachers, and

eventually burnout, were lack of assistance and resources for the general education teacher, as

well as inadequate social supports. Surprisingly, they concluded that the more positive the

teacher’s attitude was towards inclusion, the more likely they were to experience teacher

burnout. In this case, the teacher had ideological views of how inclusion should be carried out in

their classroom, and when their own inclusive practices fell short of these ideals due to lack of

support and resources, they felt as though they were inadequate, and questioned their ability. The

teachers that had less positive attitudes towards inclusion were less stressed over whether or not

they were providing an effective inclusive classroom because they did not value the importance

of educating their students in an inclusive environment and therefore did not worry about how

inclusive their classroom really was.

According to Zollers, Ramanathan, and Yu (1999), many inclusive programs suffer from

a lack of resources and administrative support, and teachers are often forced to “include students

with disabilities without sufficient classroom supports or training and special and regular

education staff often fail to collaborate effectively” (p. 158). In situations such as these, teachers

are expected to include students with exceptionalities in their general education classrooms based

on ideals and results that have arisen from studies where teachers had an abundance of supports,

resources, and time to collaborate. Teachers are being set up for failure right from the start as

18


they will have great difficulty reaching the inclusionary potential that they seek to develop. Over

time, teachers will begin to feel frustrated with their progress, and feelings of stress will begin to

develop.

Implications

In today’s society, there is a great deal of focus on respecting the basic rights of all

people, especially those with exceptionalities, and creating an inclusive society as a whole.

Teachers play a pivotal role in the implementation of an inclusive society through the day to day

activities and learning experiences they provide in their classroom. Much research has been

conducted to determine the effectiveness of inclusion, and the effect that it has on the

achievement of not only the students with exceptionalities, but also their classmates. The

research on this area is inconclusive and varied, and although there are some studies that show

significant positive impacts of inclusion on student achievement, the majority of the research

shows that being educated in an inclusive classroom has very little impact on student academic

achievement. Many of the studies that showed positive impacts of inclusion on student

achievement attributed this increase in achievement to adequate resources, teacher training, and

support. However, since not all studies referenced in this article come to this conclusion, or even

mention the available resources, this claim cannot be generalized across all inclusive educational

situations. Additionally, the implication that classrooms with less resources, less support, and un-

trained teachers is the cause of the evident non-effect of inclusion on academic achievement,

cannot be substantiated due to the lack of evidence in the articles studied to support such claim.

Therefore, it is not possible to draw causal inferences from the research with regards to the effect

of teacher training, available resources, and adequate support on the academic achievement

levels of students in inclusive classrooms.

19


A research study conducted by Farrell, Dyson, Polat, Hutcheson, and Gallannaugh (2007)

concluded a similar non-effect of inclusion on the academic achievement of students with

exceptionalities and their non-exceptional classmates, and these researchers agreed that the most

important thing for school systems to understand is that “there are other factors within a school’s

make up, rather than its degree of inclusivity, that impact on the average academic achievements

of its pupils” (p. 335). This information has major implications for school officials, as way too

much time and effort is being placed on deciding whether or not inclusion is working in their

schools, or what they can do to make their schools more inclusive. They forget to focus on what

really matters, each individual student’s learning. More effort should be placed on educating

teachers on effective teaching styles, and increasing the provision of both time and material

resources. In addition, teacher education should be investigated and increased through in-

services, as well as explore all other areas that will have a positive impact on student

achievement, despite whether or not these students are in inclusive classrooms.

In addition, “the mixed results and modest advantages provided by inclusion suggest a

mere inclusive placement is no guarantee of success”, as the success of such a program relies

heavily on teacher collaboration, adequate support, and resources to meet the diverse needs of all

students within the class (Canadian Council on Learning, 2009, p. 7). These factors that help

promote student learning, such as support networks, resources, and time to collaborate, are not

only important for inclusive schools, but all schools that are trying to educate children in today’s

society. Both the government and school board need to recognize these necessities for successful

educational services for our students, and provide the services and support that is necessary to

make our schools more effective and it is only then that we can truly determine if inclusion is the

most effective placement for our students. On a school level, both staff and administrators need

20


to create support networks that provide inclusive teachers with both resources and collaborative

opportunities within the school. Common preparatory periods, slotted within the regular school

cycle schedule, among staff of similar subject areas or grades would be highly effective.

Teachers could meet and discuss any concerns they may have about the dynamics of their

classroom, as well as share suggestions and resources with each other that they have found

effective in their own inclusionary classroom. Sharing ideas in common issues validate decisions

that teachers have made within the inclusive classroom, thereby increasing their self confidence.

It is believed that students with exceptionalities need “the opportunity to interact with

typical peers to acquire typical patterns and social interactions” (Cross, Traub, Hutter-Pishgahi,

& Shelton, 2004, p. 170). Moreover, Hanson et al. believe that “self-contained classrooms do not

offer the range of child-to-child relationships that are necessary for children to learn peer

interaction skills” (as cited in Cross et al., 2004, p. 170). However, when looking specifically at

the socio-emotional development of students in inclusive classrooms, the research is also varied,

although there are many studies that showed positive effects on attitude towards exceptionalities,

acceptance of individuals with exceptionalities, and an overall increase in social interaction. This

implies that, when looking at this aspect of inclusion, teachers must look at each individual

student and determine whether or not inclusionary classrooms are the best choice for them. Due

to the weak relationship between inclusion and increased academic performance, exceptional

students should not be placed in general education classrooms for this reason alone. As the

Canadian Council on Learning (2009) states:

If students with special educational needs are more comfortable and confident in separate

settings-as may be the case for hearing impaired, learning-disabled, and some

emotionally disturbed students- educators and decision-makers will have to proceed

carefully, as the benefits of inclusion are not overwhelming. Furthermore, some special

needs may be more conducive to inclusion than others. Boards and schools may do well

to ensure a range of services are available to support students with differing needs (p. 8).

21


Therefore, when looking at the future of inclusion, administrators and teachers should not force

inclusion in the general education classroom on each and every child that has an exceptionality,

they should look at the individual characteristics, and strengths and needs of each individual

child and make an educated decision as to where their needs can best be met.

The diversity that exists among students in classrooms today is immense and teachers are

expected to provide educational experiences that meet the diverse needs of all students within

that class. Teachers must provide each and every student with meaningful and effective learning

experiences, while also respecting their dignity, and this is no easy feat. Research has shown that

inclusive practices evoke stress and fear among general educators who must teach students with

exceptionalities in their general education classroom. This has major implications for teachers, as

prolonged feelings of stress can lead to “extreme reactions of anger, anxiety, depression, fatigue,

boredom, cynicism, guilt, psychosomatic reactions, and in extreme cases, an emotional

breakdown” (Talmor, Reiter, & Feigin, 2005, p. 218). There must be appropriate support

networks available for teachers on both a school and district level for teachers who are

experiencing feelings of stress. One recommendation would be to create a blog, or web portal

that teachers can access on a district level to share their resources, experiences, concerns and

frustrations, as well as any strategies that they have found effective in their inclusionary

classroom. This could provide a strong support network for teachers in inclusive classrooms for

all grades and subject areas alike.

One of the biggest concerns of general educators is that they will not be able to

adequately meet the diverse needs of their exceptional students as they have not been given

adequate in-servicing or taught the required skills they need to meet these needs effectively. A

recommendation for individual schools, or school boards as a whole, would be to provide in-

22


service programs or individualized training to any teacher who requires specialized training in

inclusionary practices. It would be equally beneficial to provide a refresher to teachers on how to

effectively educate students with exceptionalities, in addition to any new classroom teachers for

whom such skills are required. As Worrell (2008) states, “school systems need to better inform

general educators on the classification of disabilities, types of accommodations, modifications,

and the developmental history of the child with disabilities” (p. 45). According to a study by

Male (2011), professional development opportunities in the area of inclusive practices are

“effective in bringing about attitudinal shift of a positive nature in relation to inclusion” (p. 184).

Therefore, any advances made in the area of professional development would be beneficial to all

teachers and students involved and would be a worthy endeavour for schools and school boards

to facilitate.

According to Leithwood (2006), when discussing the inclusionary movement in schools,

we must recognize that “stress is not only an unavoidable by-product of significant change, it is

an essential condition leading to constructive change as long as it is in manageable doses” (as

cited in Brackerweed, 2008, p. 132). Evidently, stress created by the pressure to be inclusive can

help motivate teachers to try new things and make a conscious effort to create a classroom that is

truly inclusive for all, as long as these stress levels do not get too great and are maintained at a

productive level. If these stress levels rise to uncomfortable levels, teachers can develop coping

strategies that allow them to believe they can handle and overcome these stressors (Gmelch &

Gates, 1998). When teachers become educated on creating effective coping strategies to deal

with their stressors, their stress levels are less likely to elevate to levels that negatively impact

their teaching ability, and the education of their students. Teachers could become educated on

23


ways they can create these coping strategies during professional development days both on a

school and district level.

Conclusion

Over the last several decades, “changing values about children with special needs has

influenced policy and practice and legislation now emphasizes the rights of disabled people to

full participation and equality of opportunity in every aspect of life” (Glazzard, 2011, p. 56). It is

not surprising that the premise for the creation of this inclusive society is deeply rooted in

schools. However, with this inclusionary movement in schools, comes a great deal of

controversy regarding the impact of placing students with exceptionalities in the regular

education classroom.

The literature discussing the impact of inclusion on the academic achievement and socio-

emotional development of students with exceptionalities and their non-exceptional classmates is

quite varied and inconclusive, however many studies indicated that there was no overall impact

on the academic performance of students without exceptionalities. The students with

exceptionalities that are being educated in inclusive, general education classrooms have

exhibited slight increases in academic performance, although these improvements are small and

are often contributed to many other beneficial factors that are not necessarily related to their

placement in inclusive classrooms. The socio-emotional development of students without

exceptionalities appears to increase slightly when in inclusive classrooms, as they become more

comfortable with exceptionalities, and interact more with exceptional students. On the other

hand, although students with exceptionalities tend to have more friendships in inclusive settings,

these friendships are more assistive in nature and do not usually last for extended periods of

time. In addition, research indicates that inclusion causes teachers to become more stressed and

24


more likely to experience teacher burnout, especially when adequate resources, support

networks, and time to collaborate are not provided.

As Kauffman, Landrum, Mock, Sayeski, and Sayeski (2005) state, “the ultimate test of

special education should be whether a particular student is receiving good instruction that

matches his or her needs, not the students placement” (p. 2). Although some children with

exceptionalities can be taught very successfully in general education classrooms, it is not ok to

simply assume that by placing a child with an exceptionality in a general education classroom,

we are acting in the best interest of this child. We cannot place students with exceptionalities in

the regular classroom based on the premise that it will increase the academic achievement of all

students involved. There is some evidence that students without exceptionalities being educated

in inclusive classrooms experience gains in socio-emotional development, however, these results

are varied, and should not be the sole factor fueling the inclusionary movement. Some children,

for example those with emotional and behavioural disorders, experience great stress and anxiety

in the general education classroom, and should not be forced to do something that is causing

more harm than good. In these cases, teachers are being forced to “act in ways that defy [their]

common sense” (Delpit, 2003, p. 14). Advocates for inclusion feel that “a segregated school

program does not prepare young people to be part of the community and society when they

become adults. Growing up and interacting with their peers does that” (Porter, 2008, p. 4). This

may be true in some cases, however, we must look at the individual characteristics of each and

every student to determine where their needs would best be met. It seems that too much focus is

being placed on the placement of students in either general education classrooms or special

education classrooms, and not enough time is being spent on the steps that need to be taken in

order to meet the needs of all students. Overall, the “physical inclusion of students with

25


disabilities does not guarantee a quality education” (Bang & Lamb, 1996, p. 3). There are many

factors that affect both the academic achievement and socio-emotional development of students

in inclusive classrooms, and all angles must be taken into account when deciding the best way to

educate our students. Inclusion can be beneficial to many students as long as adequate resources

and supports are provided to all teachers involved. However, because the evidence supporting

inclusion is inconclusive and weak in many areas, teachers and administrators should explore all

possible placements for each individual child based on their intricate circumstances, as an

inclusive setting may not be the best choice for all students.

26


References

Bang, M., Lamb, P., & United States Department of Education and Rehabilitation Services

(1996). The impact of inclusion of students with challenging needs.

Bowers, C. (1997). Effectiveness of inclusion in an Indiana middle school. 1-110.

Brackenreed, D. (2008). Inclusive education: Identifying teachers perceived stressors in inclusive

classrooms. Exceptionality Education Canada, 18(3), 131-147.

Brucker, P. (1994). The advantages of inclusion for students with learning disabilities. Journal of

Learning Disabilities, 27(9), 581-582.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1 of the Constitution Act. (1982). Section 15.

Canadian Council on Learning. (2009). Does Placement Matter? Comparing the academic

performance of students with special needs in inclusive and separate settings. Retrieved

from http://www.ccl-cca.ca/pdfs/LessonsInLearning/03_18_09E.pdf

Cross, A., Traub, E., Hutter-Pishgahi, L., & Shelton, G. (2004). Elements of successful inclusion

for children with significant disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education,

24(3), 169-183.

Delpit, L. (2003). Educators as seed people growing a new future. Educational Researcher,

7(32), 14-31.

Farrell, P., Dyson, A., Polat, F., Hutcheson, G., & Gallannaugh, F. (2007). Inclusion and

achievement in mainstream schools. European Journal of Special Needs Education,

22(2), 131-145.

Farrell, P., Dyson, A., Polat, F., Hutcheson, G., & Gallannaugh, F. (2006). The relationship

between inclusion and academic achievement in English mainstream schools. School

Effectiveness and School Improvement, 18(3), 335-352.

Fejgin, N., Talmor, R., & Erlich, L. (2005). Inclusion and burnout in physical education.

European Physical Education Review, 11(1), 29-50.

27


Florian, L., Rouse, M., Black-Hawkins, K., & Jull, S. (2004). What can national data sets tell us

about inclusion and pupil achievement? British Journal of Special Education, 31(3), 115-

121.

Gandhi, A. (2007). Context matters: Exploring relations between inclusion and reading

achievement of students without disabilities. International Journal of Disability, 54(1),

91-112.

Glazzard, J. (2011). Perceptions of the barriers to effective inclusion in one primary school:

Voices of teachers and teaching assistants. Support for Learning, 26(2), 56-63.

Gmelch, W., & Gates, G. (1998). The impact of personal, professional, and organizational

characteristics on administrator burnout. Journal of Educational Administration, 36(2),

146-159.

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Education. (2010). Inclusive school

culture. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov.nl.ca/edu/k12/inclusion.html

Havey, J. (1998). Inclusion, the law, and placement decisions: Implications for school

psychologists. Psychology in the Schools, 35(2), 145-152.

Hornby, G. (2011). Inclusive education for children with special education needs: A critique.

International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 58(3), 321-329.

Hutchinson, N. (2010). Inclusion of exceptional learners in Canadian schools (3rd ed.).

Toronto, ON: Pearson Canada Inc.

Kauffman, J., Landrum, T., Mock, D., Sayeski, B., & Sayeski, K. (2005). Diverse knowledge

and skills require a diversity of instructional groups: A position statement. Remedial and

Special Education, 26(1), 2-6.

Lerner, J., & Johns, B. (2009). Learning disabilities and related mild disabilities:

Characteristics, teaching strategies, and new directions (11th ed.). Boston, MA:

Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.

28


Male, D. (2011). The impact of a professional development programme on teachers’ attitude

towards inclusion. Support for Learning, 26(4), 182-186.

Porter, G. (2008). Making Canadian schools inclusive: A call to action. Canadian Education

Association, 48(2), 62-66.

Rouse, M., & Florian, L. (2006). Inclusion and achievement: Student achievement in secondary

schools with higher and lower proportions of pupils designated as having special

education needs. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 10(6), 481-493.

Ruijs, N., Van der Veen, I., & Peetsma, T. (2010). Inclusive education and students without

special education needs. Educational Research, 52(4), 351-390.

Salend, S., & Duhaney, L. (1999). The impact of inclusion on students with and without

disabilities and their educators. Remedial and Special Education, 20(2), 114-126.

Talmor, R., Reiter, S., & Feigin, N. (2005). Factors relating to regular education teacher burnout

in inclusive education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 20(2), 215-229.

Tinzmann, M., Jones, B., Fennimore, T., Bakker, J., Fine, C., & Pierce, J. (1990). What is the

collaborative classroom? Retrieved from http://www.arpisd.org/admin/supt/collab2.htm

Worrell, J. (2008). How schools can avoid the seven deadly “sins” of inclusion. American

Secondary Education, 36(2), 43-56.

Zollers, N., Ramanathan, A., & Yu, M. (1999). The relationship between school culture and

inclusion: How an inclusive culture supports inclusive education. Qualitative Studies in

Education, 12(2), 157-174.

the impact of inclusion on student achievement, socio...

Documents