Inclusion Essay, Research Paper

Within the past decades and a half considerable discussion has occurred

regarding the most appropriate setting within which to provide education for

students in special education. Although the change in the educational

environment is significant for handicapped student the concepts of inclusion

also bring up new issues for the regular education classroom teachers. The

movement toward full inclusion of special education students in general

education setting has brought special education to a crossroad and stirred

considerable debate on its future direction. Proponents of full inclusion argue

that the needs of students in general education. The problems dealing with

children who have special needs have been the subject of much educational

research and findings have helped educators provide programs and services for

many children who otherwise would not have been helped. Full inclusion is

"an approach on which students who are disabled or at risk receive all

instruction in a regular classroom setting" (Hardman, Drew, Egan, &

Wolf, 1993). Inclusion is more effective when students with special need are

placed in a general education classroom after adequate planning. Inclusion does

not mean unilateral changes in student’s placements without appropriate

preparation. In 1990’s, inclusion appears to be emerging terminology of advise

to describe educating students in special education. P. L. 94-142 (1975) in

effect, reinforced a separate special educational system to meet the educational

needs of children identified as having a disability. A cornerstone of the

federal law (reauthorized in 1990 as the federal law (reauthorized in 1990 as

the Individual with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA) is that students with

disabilities should receive an appropriate education in the least restrictive

environment (LRE0 until recently, courts favored conclusions that the most

appropriate education for students with extensive disabilities would most likely

occur in segregate setting that had more resources and special help. But as we

approach the 21st century, advocates are still concerned about discrimination

and the courts have been rethinking the need for physical inclusion to enhance

the opportunities for learning from students who do not have disabilities.

Inclusion is not a program that a school system should consider as a way to save

money. To do it right will cost more money. However, the pay off for all

students is likely to be worth the extra cost. We have found that in most cases’

students with special needs who are included are achieving at far higher levels

than they did in segregated classrooms. We have also found them blossoming

socially, and many have developed real friendship with children in their

neighborhoods. In additions, all students with special needs who are included

are achieving at for higher levels than they did in segregated classrooms. We

have also found them blossoming socially, and many have developed real

friendship with children in their neighborhoods. In addition, all students have

benefitted from having such extra supports as curricular adaptations, study

aids, and more individualized assistance. All students are learning that

everyone brings strengths and needs to every situation. They are learning about

conflict resolutions and the importance of being responsible. Things that were

stumbling blocks at first have become benefits. For example, greater

collaboration among teachers and other staff members has allowed them to share

skills and resources and has led to the improvement of all instruction. We no

longer have regular education supplies and special education supplies. We simply

have educational supplies, and money has been reallocated to reflect that.

Morever, we no longer have the needs for a large fleet of special education

buses to bus students out of their home attendance areas for a particular

special education class. Our school system did not increase funding during two

years of inclusion; we operated on a frozen budget. Though costs have now

increased as more schools in our division have begun to adopt inclusion, our

per-pupil expenditures for students with special need are still less than those

of most neighboring school system, especially those that bus students to other

schools and those that pay tuition for students with special needs to attend

school in other school districts. We also found ways to reallocate resource

despite the fact that Virginia allocates special education funds categorically

and not according to inclusion models. We have found that, through writing

waivers, we can please teachers in cross-categorical positions so that they may

consult from school to school on student needs a cost comparison of

self-contained versus inclusive programs in our system showed that, with the

latter, money could be saved on classroom equipment, transportation,

instructional materials and mobile classrooms. With the recent passage of the

Americans with Disabilities Act and the continuing success stories emerging from

inclusion programs around the county, we believe that our school reflect a

society that is ready to embrace all children regardless of abilities or

disabilities so that they can be educated together and learn to value one

another as unique individuals. Those schools that continue to struggle to keep

students with disabilities out of general education classrooms should seriously

consider investing their time, effort, and money instead in the creation of

environment that welcome all students. What was learned from this journey?

First, they learned that they could succeed in general classes, as did other

at-risk students and students with disabilities. The general and special

educators learned several teaching procedures that worked under a co-teaching

argument. The school staff learned that inclusion would not succeed unless major

changes were made in terms of the content that was taught, the methods used to

assess competence, and the support provided to teachers and students when

difficulties were encountered in the general education classroom. Second, the

planning team learned that general educators at Clayton High School were

reluctant to give up teaching content for leaning strategy instruction,

particularly if the class was a heterogeneous class designed for average to

above-average students. Teachers, at Clayton High School received tremendous

latitude in making decisions about curriculum, they still felt pressure to teach

certain core skills and competencies and to keep expectations at a very high

level. Thus, the teachers found that students with disabilities needed more

intensive instruction and many more practice opportunities to master leaning

strategies than did typical students. This type of instruction requires time

that is often not available in general education classes. Given the limitation

of the general education classroom, the Clayton High staff not believes that the

ideal plan for inclusion is to teach students with disabilities strategies in

the resource room and teach all students a brief, adapted version of relevant

strategies in general education classes. This approach provides instruction in

strategies for all students while providing a review for students with

disabilities, was are more likely to use the strategy because it is part of the

general education curriculum. Foremost among this positive outcomes was the

marked increase in collaboration among the staff. Specifically, the staff at

Clayton High realized the importance of developing a support system for all

at-risk students to ensure that inclusion would be successful for low-performing

students as well as students with disabilities. Therefore, a training center was

conceptualized that would provide leaning strategy and study skills instruction

and tutoring for all students. The following year, the remedial teacher and

their teaching interns opened the Mark Twain Learning Center. IN addition,

during the use of objectives tests and use more alternative or performance-based

assessments (e.g., portfolio projects and presentations). These and others

change helped students with disabilities and low-achieving students experience

success in regular classes. What was learned from this journey? First, the

learned that they could succeed in general classes, as did other at-risk

students and students with disabilities. The general and special educations

learned several teaching procedures that worked under a co-teaching arrangement.

The school staff learned that inclusion would succeed unless major changes were

made in terms of the content that was taught the methods used to assess

competence and the support provided to teachers and students when difficulties

were encountered in the general education classroom. Second, the planning team

learned that general education at Clayton High were reluctant to give up

teaching content for leaning strategy instruction, particularly the class was

designed for average to above average students. Although teachers at Clayton

High received tremendous latitude in making decisions about curriculum, they

still felt pressure to teach certain core skills and competencies and to keep

expectations at a very high level. However, they were willing to integrate brief

instruction in related study skills and were especially enthusiastic about the

use of content enhancement routines. Third, the teachers found that students

with disabilities needed more intensive instruction and many more practice

opportunities to master leaning strategies than did typical students. This type

of instruction requires time that is often not available in general education

classes. Given the limitations of the general education classroom, the Clayton

High staff now believes that the idea plan for inclusion is to teach students

with disabilities strategies in the resource students with disabilities

strategies in the resource room and then teach all students a brief, adapted

version of relevant strategies in general education classes. This approach

provides instruction in strategies for all students, while providing a review

for students with disabilities who are then more likely to use strategy, because

it is part of the general education curriculum. Finally, the teachers discussed

- as many other educators and researchers have concluded that detracting and

inclusion of students with mild disabilities in regular classes require

extensive planning. Many of these students have had significant learning and

behavioral disabilities. The faculty has always been and continues to be a group

of hard-working dedicated competent professionals who care about students and

are willing to make adaptations and modifications for the benefit of students.

However, even this group of professionals could not make detaching or inclusion

work for everyone without significant changes in teaching and assessment methods

and in support system. Inclusion can work but only if it is supported inclusion.

Successfully including students with mild disabilities at the secondary level

requires both administrative and instructional adjustment. In the two cases,

studies presented here, teachers received considerable time for planning and

managing administrative support throughout the change process. Changes require

considerable time and effort. The instructional program was characterized by a

high level of collaboration among general and special education teachers,

specifying a scope and sequence of learning strategy instruction across classes

and grades, and a commitment to alter what and how content was delivered in the

general education classroom through the use of various content enhancement

routines. In short, successful inclusion of students with learning disabilities

withing the general education classroom was realized only when the set of

instructional conditions associated with the notion of supported inclusion was

met. This case study describes the educational experiences of students with

learning disabilities (LD) who were included full-time in general education

classes in one elementary school in Virginia. Date for two students with LD were

collected through observations, interviews, and record reviews. The students

were observed in reading, mathematics, and science classes. Interviews were

conducted with the principal, the special education supervisor, one special

education teaches, two general education teachers, two students, and two

parents. The review of student records provided information on achievement

levels, referral information, and IEP goals. Descriptions of the context for

inclusion, the model of including the role of special education teachers, and

students’ educational experiences were included in the case report. Valley

Elementary School was one of 32 elementary schools in Volunteer County School

District, a district serving over 47,000 students. The principal described their

program as: A decentralized special education program in this school system. We

have one school board for all general education and special education. The

process in volunteer works this way, I mean, if a child is referred for possible

evaluation, the referral comes right here. Every building has a designated

special education coordinator. The referral goes to the special education

coordinator and that person will bring the case before the child-study team for

the screening components. A decision in made at the point as to whether or not

to proceed to full evaluation and we are in control of those evaluations

totally. Every school has educational diagnosticians available at least

part-time and school psychologists . . . So we are in control of those

components and we take it all the way through to eligibility in writing of the

IEP and if the child needs to go, say, to a central program that is not in my

building, we simply all the principals of the school down the road that has the

EMR class or the Ed self-contained class and we say, "we have got one

coming to you." Nothing goes through the central office. It is a lot of

work, but it puts all of those services to the customer, to the parent, and it

gives us control. The collaborative teaching model at Valley Elementary School

was developed locally, without university involvement, from inspiration and

training provided by staff in the country special education offices. The

collaborative teaching model was implemented initially at the high school level,

then expanded to several elementary schools in the county. The special education

supervisor explained: "It started in secondary because there was a real

need for a secondary program. The institutional specialist for learning

disabilities had been looking at trying to find a way to improve the secondary

program. This, the collaborative teaching model one of the special education

options available to students with LD in Volunteer County School District. The

principal reported that at Valley School they moved into a collaborative

teaching model slowly, beginning only with fifth grades (in 19988), then serving

only third and fourth grades (in 1990). By 1991, however, the program had

expanded to include third, fourth, and fifth grades. The collaborative teaching

model provided full-time services in general education classes for students with

LD who had been served in a resource program. Only 23 of the 40 students with LD

and two of the seven special education teachers were involved in the

collaborative learning disabilities programs in this school: the remaining

students with LD and students with other disabilities who attended this school

were taught in resource rooms and self-contained classes by the remaining five

special education teachers. The students with LD in the collaborative program

were all assigned to the general education teachers were co-teaching. The

collaborative teaching model, strategy training was a central component.

Accommodating individual student needs was identified as a second important

component of the collaborative teaching model. Local personnel in Virginia

developed an inclusion model to improve services for students with LD. The

collaborative teaching model they chose involved placing into the mainstream

students whose IEP goals could be met in a special education teacher committed

to changing her role, and a general education teacher volunteering to

participate in the collaboration. The model was implemented in only one class

per grade level, and only three grade levels in the elementary school reflecting

the perceived current needs of the school. School personnel reported that the

success of the model was contingent on having personnel who believe in the

model. The collaborative teaching approach was part of a continuum of services

available to students with LD in the district. Students with LD were clustered

into age-appropriate classes at each grade level so that a special education

teacher could team teach with a small number of general education teachers for

90 minutes per day. The in-class services consisted mostly of instruction on

learning strategies. The majority of the school day of the target students with

LD was spent as part of the general education group. Full inclusion occur when a

child with disability learns in a general education classroom alongside his or

her age mates with all the necessary supports. These supports are provided

through extensive teamwork and communication. Moreover, in providing these

supports school must always consider the best interests of the student with

disabilities, his or her peers, and all the members of the inclusion team,

including the special educator, the general educator, parents, building

administrators, therapists, and other support personnel whatever, else it maybe,

inclusion should never be seen as a money-saving option for a school or district

under inclusion, no support services are taken away from students; indeed, even

more support maybe required to enable a student to function optimally in the

general education classroom. An individual child’s educational program is

developed and owned by all team members. These are not a single expert, but a

team of experts who contribute interdependently to each child’s program. We have

our support for the philosophy of inclusion on three fundamental arguments.

First, we believe that inclusion has a legal base. The great majority of court

cases have not upheld the traditional practice of segregating students with

special educational needs. Many cases are still pending but it is unusual to

pick up an education journal today without seeing some references to inclusion

and the legal mandates that support the practice. The bottom line of the

argument for inclusion is that each child has a legal right to an equal

opportunity to obtain an education in the "least restrictive

environment" possible. For many advocates of inclusion, the fight for

inclusion has become a civil rights issue in the segregated programs are seen to

be inherently unequal and a violation of the rights of students with special

education needs. A second argument for inclusion rests on the results of

research on best practices. Research continues to show that students who are not

pulled out do better than those who are segregated. Analyses of segregated

special education programs indicate that they have simply not worked. Despite

increases in spending and the growth of the special education bureaucracy,

children in segregated special education programs have not shown the growth that

was predicted. Finally, but perhaps most important, a strong moral and ethnical

argument can be made for the "rightness" of inclusion: it is the best

thing to do for the students. Segregating students the day in any way is not

good: it classifies, it creates bias, and it makes them different. Schools are a

reflection of the communities they serve, and so all members of those

communities should be a part of the schools. Students with special needs are a

part of our communities, and with the inclusion philosophy, we can make them

more and more a part of our school communities. We need to learn from one

another in our schools so that we can do the same in our communities. In the

future, students majoring in education are likely to regard the practice of

segregating students with special needs in much the same as we look upon racial

segregation before the 1960’s. The Role of the Special Education Teacher: When

inclusion was first initiated in some school systems, the myth existed that

special educators would no longer be needed since the children once taught in

separate classrooms would be in general education classrooms. This is very far

from the truth. Indeed, the role of the special educator is crucial. The special

education ran act as the case manager for his or her students, facilitating team

meetings and planning sessions. He or she is responsible for determining the

curricular adaptations that may need to be in place on a daily or weekly basis

and for facilitating the development by parents and team members of

individualized education program (IEP) throughout the year and is usually the

liaison with the therapists. The special educator should also be involved in

actively developing and participating in planning and supports sessions

involving the classmates of the child with a disability. These sessions are

necessary to the success of the child who is included. Peers need to understand

the unique aspects of their classmate to learn fact, not myths: to learn how to

interact with their classmate: and to develop empathy and respect for that

person. The job description could literally go on and on but the most important

role the special educator takes on is that of team playing especially in

supporting the classroom teacher. Inclusion does not mean that a child never

receives separate instruction in skills or functional routines. However, if a

child is to receive separate instruction, it should be a valuable experience

that can only be done outside the classroom. For example, if a child needs

intensive reading instruction in a small group or even one-to-one, this

instruction should be built into his or her schedule at an appropriate time

(e.g., during the language arts period). Such specialized instruction maybe

provided by a general educator, a special education, or an instructional

assistant. Some educators argue that students with significant physical

disabilities or with intellectual disabilities cannot learn functional life

skills in a general education environment. If a student needs to work on toilet

skills, the type of classrooms he or she is in makes not differences. Bathrooms

can be found in the school building, and these skills can be worked on there at

natural or scheduled times of the day. Similar advise applies for mealtimes

skills, grooming skills, and many other skills that may be priority areas on

some children’s IEP. Community living and vocational skills can also be a part

of students’ schedules, as long as they are skills that the parents and team

members have identified as being necessary and relevant. We have also had the

opportunity to work with included children who face behavioral challenges. This

is the most controversial and unsettling aspect of inclusion. No matter what

environment a child is in, behavioral challenges are constant and

time-consuming. This in nothing new to public schools or to special education.

The fact is if teachers put a group of children together who demonstrate

challenging behaviors these behaviors will tend increase and become more intense

through imitation and an effort to attract more attention. If teachers wait for

a child to be "ready" to move into an inclusive setting by expecting

his or her behavior to improve in a segregated environment that day may never

come. The "readiness theory" is a myth. Children with challenging

behavior need positive role models, structure, and specific behavioral plans

based on natural rewards and contingencies that are designed to replace negative

behavior with positive ones. The Role of Classroom Teacher: To be successful in

an inclusive setting, a general education teacher must believe that students

with disabilities can learn successfully and deserve the opportunity to learn in

age-appropriate classrooms. We continue to celebrate the abundant leaning that

takes place among classmates of all abilities in classrooms throughout our

school. We see students with disabilities learning alongside their nondisabled

peers in an environment in which support is provided and a real feeling of

communist exists. Students in an inclusive setting develop a new sense of

understanding and respect for one another and for human differences. Classroom

teachers who do not lower their expectations continue to be amazed at what

students can achieve in a risk-free environment where differences. Classroom

teachers who do not lower their expectation continue to be amaze at what

students can achieve in a risk-free environment where differences are recognized

and celebrated. Members of the class get to know one another, talk about likes

and dislikes, and start to realize that they are all equal members of the

classroom community. There are many components to such a community classroom,

and more important, we have found that strategies that are effective for

inclusion tend to benefit all learners, regardless of their abilities or

disabilities. Effective discipline strategies must be in lace, and part of any

successful discipline strategy are the settings of realistic and positive goals

for students. With realistic goals in place for individuals, appropriate

classroom behaviors thrive. When students recognize the appropriateness

trustworthy and confident. Cooperative leaning is a noncompetitive teaching

strategy that works well in an inclusive classroom. Through the activities of

cooperative learning groups, each student can play an equal part in classroom

activity. The roles of group members need to be define clearly and all members

of the group must participate, allowing each student to make a contribution to

the learning member are clearly important, and each student can feel valued even

as a student develops needed interpersonal skills. Therefore, from the first day

of school, the classroom teacher must take ownership of included students with

special needs. These students are no longer thought of as the special education

teacher’s students who have been placed in a general education classroom for a

short period. The classroom teacher should become very involved with the process

of developing of IEP and with making sure that the necessary supports and

services are provided to the included student. The student feels a real sense of

belonging in such and environment. The Role of the Principle: The principal

plays one of the most important roles in an inclusive school. Researchers have

found repeatedly that inclusion programs are not successful if the principal

does not take an active and positive role in the process. Principal cannot see

inclusion as a program that takes place only in classrooms. Inclusion must

become a school wide philosophy; it must permeate the school and become a

building block for all other programs that occur. Curriculum and Instruction: A

very important part of allowing each student to participate actively at his or

her own level and to meet individualized goals is an overlapping curriculum.

Offering different materials in the same topic but at different reading levels

has proved to be very successful. The same curriculum goals are expected of all

students, but differences are taken into account. Parent involvement has proved

vital in inclusive classrooms. Most often, if parents are informed of what is

taking place in the classroom, they will be supportive. Parents can be invited

to volunteer in the classroom, both to assist the teacher and to witness

firsthand how he or she goes about meeting the individual needs of the students.

When the classroom community is extended to include parents, greater involvement

will lead to greater success." Involving students as peer helpers for

students with disabilities is a very effective strategy. Teachers will need to

model strategies for students and allow students to be involved in

problem-solving sessions. Peer assistance and support can help nondisabled

students build and maintain relationship with their disabled peers. In a

successful inclusive classroom, the general educator, the special educator and

the instructional assistants must collaborate to meet the needs of all students

for successful collaboration to take place, the following assets are by: ?

Communication. Teacher who collaborate must be honest and open about concerns

and feelings. ? Flexibility. Teachers in inclusive classrooms must be willing

to "roll with the punches," to compromise, and to do things

differently if necessary. ? Shared ownership. The student with an IEP is part

of the general class and thus "belongs to" the general education

teacher. The special education teacher plays a variety of roles that support the

student and the classroom teacher. ? Recognition of differing needs. All

students can successful met the same curriculum goals with adaptation and

support appropriate to their individual needs. ? Need-based instruction.

Collaborators must be willing to plan activities that ensure success and not be

overly concerned with time lines. ? Willingness to be a team player. The team

must be willing to plan and work together on all issues, especially student

behavior. ? Dependability: Each team member must be prepared for his or her

part of all planning and lesson responsibilities. ? Cooperative grading. The

special education teacher and the

English Major from Paterson, N.J. with ambitions to be a writer and actor.