DOCUMENT RESUME ED 379 856 EC 303 729 AUTHOR Malloy, William W. TITLE Inclusion: An Educational Reform Strategy for All Children. PUB DATE [94] NOTE 35p. PUB TYPE Viewpoints (Opinion/Position Papers, Essays, etc.) (120) EDRS PRICE MFO1 /PCO2 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Change Strategies; Cooperation; Curriculum; *Disabilities; Educational Change; Elementary Secondary Education; *Inclusive Schools; Individualized Education Programs; Mainstreaming; Multicultural Education; *Regular and Special Education Relationship; *Resistance to Change; *School Restructuring; Teacher Certification; Teacher Role IDENTIFIERS *Reform Strategies ABSTRACT Inclusion, a special education reform strategy, should be refocused to accommodate the needs of children with and without disabilities. Inclusion can transform the status of children with disabilities from second to first class citizens and can eliminate the problem of children who have been misdiagnosed. Inclusion is characterized by a shared responsibility for the learning problems of students and minimization of special services outside the classroom. Existing barriers to this expanded focus are certain special education program mandates and elements of school structure related to organization and curriculum. These include Individualized Educational Plans, special education certification mandates, hierarchical school organization, and curriculum design an an element of social control. Changes in general education related to the reconstruction of the school's organizational structure through site-based management, adoption of a collaborative role of teaching, and implementation of a multicultural curriculum focus are suggested as the foundation needed to facilitate the transition from a traditional to an inclusive school. (Contains approximately 100 references.) (JDD) ****************************************************************k****** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION u Office N Educalionol iletasith and Inlwavernant EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER1FM° P4LS &Namara Pm, bean IlIfacsauCad as OnalingaliOn ae yeel horn Ina demon OP wnsfina Inclusion: An C M,ne. csogyy now seen made lo 'moron aproduCa0a ovally opsion$ Mild in M.. daCt iso,Ysa 01 ypsy, Educational Reform Strategy For est 00 sir neyalisalas reareeeni offiCial (if Ri aissoo 0' 001r Y Vl 00 All Children ON r-- rn PERMISSION IO RF PROFIRIIA m MATERIAL IIAS REIN 2 TO IMO 1 11111 ATIONAI In Vllint 1 11,411MA/10N LINTER If PIC BEST COPY AVAILABLE Abstract Inclusion, a special educational reform strategy, should be refocused to accommodate the needs of children with and without disabilities. Existing barriers to this expanded focus are certain special education program mandates and elements of school structure related to organization and curriculum. Changes in general education related to the reconstruction of the school's organizational structure, role of instruction and curriculum focus are suggested as the foundation needed to facilitate the transition from a traditional to an inclusive school. 2 3 Introduction There appears to be gradual recognition that inclusion, a strategy for improving equity for special education students, may also enhance restructuring initiatives designed to promote educational excellence for all students. Perhaps this trend is best reflected in the following statement: "Without question, there is a compelling need for departments of education school districts and colleges and universities to provide high quality pre-service and in-service training to prepare all educators to work effectively with children with a diverse range of abilities and disabilities. The collaborative initiative is an exciting way to address these issues head-on" (Hunter, 1994, p. 4). The collaborative initiative being referred to is a form of inclusion. What made the statement noteworthy was that the senior associate executive director of the American Association of School Administrators, a premiere professional association for general education administrators, gave recognition to the notion that inclusion might benefit all students. This article suggests that expanding the parameters of inclusion is appropriate but not a simple task. The first portion of the article addresses the identification of special and general education impediments that may prevent the smooth transformation of a traditional educational program into an inclusive one. These impediments include the special education individualized educational plan and certification mandates. The structure of the school related to the organization and curriculum are the general education impediments being examined. What then follows are strategies for relieving the pressures exerted by the impediments, through the reconstruction of a school's organization structure, adoption of a collaborative role of teaching and implementation of a multicultural curriculum focus to broaden the perspective of inclusion. This broader perspective will be of benefit to all children because the instructional emphasis, in general education, would be on heterogeneous grouping rather than homogeneous groups and its attendant soiling process. For decades there has been a tremendous effort to transform the status of disabled children from second to first class citizens. This move is anchored in the belief that the sorting of children into categories of general education and special education creates a second class citizenship for 3 4 those not included in the general education track. Further complicating this situation is the emergence of burgeoning categor'es of children caught in between the two systems and labeled at- risk (antic, 1991a). According to Yates (1992) "As larger percentages of students in the educational system are represented by culturally and linguistically diverse students, the group the system has had the least success with, it might be concluded that special education will begin to receive larger numbers of referrals for services i.e., the regular system may begin to "dump" students into special classes (p.6)." Thus, the ranks of second class students have tremendous potential for expansion. Currently there is growing recognition that perhaps as many as 75% of the children classified as disabled have been misdiagnosed (Reynolds, Wang & Wa lberg, 1987). This revelation, coupled with political and financial considerations, is impelling educators to rethink which environment holds the best promise for educating disabled children. (Gartner & Lipsky, 1987; Fine & Asch, 1988; and Lipsky & Gartner, 1989) The prevailing thought is that the general education program should retain the responsibility for educating all children. This position replaces the previous notion that general education had degrees of responsibility as represented by the special education continuum of services (Deno, 1970). These services emphasized special class placement foremost with a potential promise of return to general education as the child became "cured" of special needs. This viewpoint was the impetus that propelled the beginning of the full inclusion movement. Presently controversy abounds regarding the parameters of inclusion (Fuchs and Fuchs, 1991; Kaufman, 1991, 1993; Stainback, Stainback, East 1994; Singer, 1988). Two distinct positions have emerged that Fuchs and Fuchs (1992) have defined as: "conservationists and abolitionists." Conservationists support the notion that the comprehensive array of support services needed to educate many disabled children can only be found in separate settings, Conversely, abolitionists believe that schools must provide all necessary support systems within general education classrooms regardless of cost. For purposes of clarity, the issue of full inclusion is best defined by common elements. According to Sailor (1991) the basic components that most Inclusion models share include: 4 5 all students attend school closest to home, 1. 2. the population of disabled students in a school reflects the natural proportion of the district, 3. zero reject model, 4. placements are age appropriate, 5. cooperative learning is a primary feature, and 6. special education supports within context of general education environment. The destinies of disabled and at-risk students are intertwined within the public school setting. In traditional schools, Skritic (1991b) maintains that students whose needs fall outside the instructional repertoire of teachers in the standard programs are referred to different teachers with the expertise to meet those needs. Students move between the two groups constantly in relation to the available educational options. Whatever the educational options, none are accorded the first class status of the traditional academic programs. There is a move to increase the parameters of the full inclusion movement to affect all students, not just disabled students. According to Burello & Lashley (1992), the inclusive school provides the atmosphere for addressing the needs of all students while preparing them to become independent and productive citizens in future society. In essence, if the philosophy of full inclusion is imbedded in the mission statement of a school, then all educational strategies will reflect accommodations to address the needs of all students. Eventually this approach will make an entire student body feel welcome in a school with approaches to education that am learner-centered. A major appeal of the inclusive school movement is the stress placed on teacher collaboration to meet the children's needs. All staff take responsibility for the ?taming problems of students. Special services outside the classroom (pull out) are minimized and greater effort is placed on specialists working within the classroom structure. The core feature of this model is that general education teachers retain full responsibily for the direction of the educational plans for all students. This model may best be summed up by a Burello & Lashley (1992) analogy. "This the general practitioner retains model is similar to one in the medical profession in whit 5 6 responsibility for the treatment of a patient, even though specialists may be involved in the diagnosis and treatment (p. 77)." Impediments To Inclusion The evolution of the inclusionary school may be stultified by several oppositional factors related to special education and the structure of schools. The original intent of special education was to provide a program for students whose learning needs were different than those of the more able students. In pursuit of this goal, individualized education plans and certification dictates contained in federal regulations and state mandates were instituted as guarantees that special instruction would be individualized and/or separate (Ysseldyke & Algozzine, 1982: and Stainback, Stainback & Forest, 1989). Now these guarantees have become impediments that may promote differences rather than similarities in the educational needs of children. Special education impediments aside, the structure of contemporary schools has never been designed to embrace special programs for disabled or at-risk students and presents another formidable impediment (Smith, Price & Marsh, 1986). Schools are designed to accommodate mainstream students; any deviants from this pattern may be referred to special programs where they then become a lesser priority for education. The inflexible nature of the schools structure, i.e. organization and curriculum, presents a pernicious influence on efforts to develop educational programs that are guided by the principles of inclusion rather than exclusion. The intent of this section is to examine, in greater detail, the special education and school structure impediments. This in-depth exploration of the impediments will provide insight into which ones may continue to exist because they transcend local building change efforts and others that might be eliminated through proper planning. This review will underscore why the special education impediments, te program mandates, might continue to exert a less than favorable influence on the efforts of schools to adopt inclusion until legislative acts remedy this situation. The section concludes with the identification of impediments, related to schnol structure and curriculum once eliminated will provide the platform on which to launch an inclusive school initiative, 6 Impediments of Special Education Pro2ram Mandates Perhaps the best method for reviewing the impediments created by special education program mandates to inclusionary schools is to initially view the issue from an historical perspective. Special education has moved through the following three major eras: isolation, tolerance and integration. These three eras are being suggested because they provide the basis for a descriptive classification of the degrees of program acceptance by general education. The Isolation Era from 1900-1975, represents a per;nd in which institutions, day schools in church basements and self contained classes, supplied the program arrangements for the majority of the disabled students not classified as speech impaired or learning disabled. It was during this period that the separate system concept encouraged special educators to build isolated systems apart from the direction of the main system. General educators viewed special education as a program that provided relief for audents unable to maintain the pace of traditional academic programs. Also, during this era, most parents seemed to be satisfied with having the school system take responsibility for educating their children in whatever setting possible. The enactment of PL 94-142 launched the Tolerance Era 1975-1985. Tolerance is an appropriate description for this era because the federal regulations and state mandates demanded greater acceptance of special education students in regular school buildings and classes. This increased presence of special education students was tolerated as a necessary condition needed to comply with regulations and mandates. General and special educators were forced into a marriage that compelled them to address the letter of the law and the attendant accountability measures which were related to least restrictive environment and individualized education programs (IEPs). This marriage, according to Peltier (1993), was ill conceived and created a Pollyanna-Horatio Algier- like euphoria that was not reality based. The spirit of PL 94-142 was little more than an afterthought during this era. Since 1985, the increased attention has been given to the spirit of the legislative enactment for special education ushered in the Integration Era. Efforts to place disabled students in the mainstream were less than productive because "mainstreaming" focused on returning disabled children to general education classes as opposed to providing resources for them to remain, as 7 much as possible, in these classes. The Regular Education Initiative (Will, 1986) was a reaction to the failed mainstreaming endeavors during the Tolerance Era and provided the basis for the design of this keystone initiative. A major centerpiece of Regular Education Initiative (REI) was the focus on an amalgamation of general and special education resources to address the needs of both disabled and at-risk students. Some scholars debated a major flaw of the initiative in that it was conceived and promoted by special educators rather than a joint venture sponsored by general and special education (Kauffman & Hallahan, 1990 and Mcleskey, Skiba & Wilcox 1990). The early 90's has witnessed the components of the REI, related to sharing general and special education resources, incorporated into full inclusion appro. :.hes, the majority of which were designated for disabled children, a disheartening trend which tends to obliterate attempts to promote inclusive schools for all aspects of diversity. Efforts to promote inclusive schools fiom a special education perspective, may not be productive in light of federal regulations and state mandates that pertain to the individual education plan and certification/specialization. An illumination of these two imperatives will now be explored. Individual Education Plan Individualized education plans are required for all students identified as disabled. This strategy was a result of a body of research that "dissuaded" educators from continuing to provide instruction to disabled students in a homogeneous fashion and to initiate individualized instruction (Winzer, 1993). Simpson, Whelan & Zabel (1993) indicate that IEPs were designed to ensure that teachers would provide an appropriate education to disabled children based on their potential. IEPs were also perceived as a strategy that would increase the likelihood of many disabled students receiving at least a portion of their education within the orbit of general education (Simpson et al 1993). This strategy once hailed as a sanguine accountability measure, was sometimes circumvented by the practice of writing IEPs that had very little relevance to the individual needs of students in special education or mainstream classes (Schenk, 1980; and Smith & Simpson. 1989). Eventually, the 1EP became a source of consternation, frustration, and vexation for many building staff and presented several dilemmas, Ethical dilemmas mounted over placing services in the IEPs S that the district could not deliver. Financial dilemmas confronted school boards that were being mandated to serve the disabled while programs for the disadvantaged were underfunded or non- existent. Philosophical dilemmas arose when general education teachers, with no special training, had classes of thirty students, including disabled children, while special education teachers had classes of eight to ten children with an aide. IEPs tend to emphasize the dissimilarities, rather than the similarities, in the ability to learn of disabled students. In addition, the IEPs tend to continue to foster the notion of separate systems for the disabled and the non-disabled. In inclusive schools, the teaching and learning approach is student centered, a process that encompasses the individualization of instruction mandated by the IEP. Certification Special education certification became mandatory, in part, to prohibit a common practice of exposing special education students to a disproportionate number of teachers who were not trained or who had been unsuccessful in general education (Winzer, 1993). Unfortunately, these certification requirements were more applicable for the decreasingly unpopular model of self- contained special services. Limited consideration was given to revising certification requirements to encompass the trend toward increasing the presence of special education students in general education classes. Efforts have mounted, over the past several decades, to increase the numbers of disabled children served in general education classes. Subsequent to 1975, federal regulations and state mandates have crystallized these efforts and presently 95% of identified students with disabilities receive at least a portion of their education in general education settings (U.S. Department of Education, 1990). In spite of this trend, state certification officials have been slow to recognize the need to mandate that teaching licenses reflect an increase in the number of courses that emphasize educating all children in regular classes, Simpson et al (1993) indicated "Presently, a single course about handicapping conditions that emphasizes categorical characteristics is typically required in [general education] pre-service programs." (p.12). This practice coupled with student teaching experiences that are not integrated throughout preservice experiences spells disaster for beginners with disabled and non-disabled students to educate, For example, 9 10