Rethinking Inclusion: Schoolwide Applications

Although educational policies differ across countries, there appear to be clear commonalities across a global context in some aspects of the utilisation of special education paraprofessionals and their relationships with special education teachers. Research and federal education policies in the United States highlight the importance of ensuring access to general education curriculum and settings for students with disabilities. In response to students’ needs for support in general education settings, schools have widely turned to the utilisation of paraprofessionals, which can present challenges. This qualitative study explored the perspectives of 64 special education teachers and paraprofessionals across 11 focus groups, focused on the key issues that arise when working together to support students with disabilities in general education settings. We used inductive qualitative analysis to identify four themes of key issues, related to: (a) shared ownership of student learning, (b) planning and implementing appropriate supports, (c) navigating collaborating roles, and (d) facilitating the bridge between general and special education. We offer recommendations for future research and practice, including for teachers, paraprofessionals, administrators, and teacher preparation personnel.

Organizational context (e.g., climate, culture, resources) can impede or enhance implementation of evidence-based practices in general education settings or special education settings serving students with autism spectrum disorder. We examined the relations between organizational context and individual (i.e., implementation leadership, administrator- or service provider-role) or school (i.e., enrollment size, public/nonpublic school type) characteristics. Participants were administrative or service providing leaders (n = 34) from 11 schools in one state on the East Coast of the United States. School leaders’ average ratings of the organizational context were generally more positive for special education than general education; however, greater culture stress was reported for special education. Correlation analyses indicated being an administrator and implementation leadership were positively associated with implementation climate in both education settings. Being an administrator was also positively associated with cultural effort (i.e., how hard people work towards achieving goals) in special education, but negatively associated with culture stress in general education. In special education, nonpublic schools had better climates (both learning and implementation), but more culture stress. Additionally, school enrollment size was negatively related to available resources and implementation climate in special education. Investigating the similarities and differences in organizational context across educational settings is needed in future research.

Students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have been shown to benefit from being educated in general education classrooms that provide interactions with typically developing peers. However, behaviors exhibited by students with ASD frequently lead to their return to segregated special education settings. Evidence-based interventions that are both cost-efficient and easy to use in general education settings are needed. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of a simple peer support intervention on the minor disruptive, off-task behaviors of three elementary students with high-functioning ASD in three different general education classrooms. Results indicated the peer support intervention was effective in reducing the off-task behaviors of the students with ASD in these inclusion settings. Practical implications and directions for future research are discussed.

Teacher‐directed violence has been acknowledged as a major issue in research over the past decade. Teacher‐directed violence is the over‐arching term used to describe teachers' experiences with physical violence and aggression (i.e., harassment, intimidation, verbal threats). This study is the first to quantitatively compare general education and special education teachers' experiences with violence from a variety of aggressors, including students, parents, colleagues, and administrators. Understanding the unique experiences of special and general educators is needed to inform intervention and prevention efforts focused on teacher‐directed violence. Data from 2363 teachers who participated in a national study in the United States examining teachers' experiences with violence and aggression were analyzed using multiple logistic regression. Comparisons of special and general educators revealed special educators were more likely to report experiencing aggression in the current or past year. Special educators were also more likely to report violence by student aggressors, while general educators were more likely to report violence by parent aggressors. Further, teacher demographic characteristics (i.e., age, gender, race/ethnicity, years of experience) and school setting (i.e., rural, urban, suburban) influenced experiences of teacher‐directed violence for both general and special educators. Findings suggest the need for future longitudinal and mixed‐methods studies, providing more educators, training, and supports in special education settings, and incorporating all school stakeholders in school‐wide interventions.

The purpose of this study was to examine classroom placement, inclusive versus non-inclusive, relative to the academic performance of students with specific learning disabilities in secondary content area classrooms. Fifty-seven high school students with learning disabilities were assessed using the Grade Level Short Form of the Multilevel Academic Survey Test (MAST). Their reading and math scores were examined relative to each student's grade level, number of general and special education classes attended, and types of placement (i.e., inclusive or non-inclusive setting). The results revealed no statistically significant evidence to indicate that students' academic achievement varied based on inclusive versus non-inclusive placement. The only statistically significant differences observed regarded participants enrolled in a general education literature class compared to those participants placed in a special education setting for literature. Implications for practice, limitations of the study, and considerations for future research are discussed. ********** Recent trends reveal that students with specific learning disabilities (SLD) are increasingly educated in general education classrooms, while the number receiving instruction in resource rooms or separate classes has decreased substantially (Holloway, 2001). Despite the increase in students with disabilities placed in general education settings there is limited research, particularly at the secondary level, to suggest where students with SLD achieve more academically. Of the many issues related to the integration or inclusion of students with disabilities into general education classrooms, there is none more important than the effects of placement on students' learning and social relations with classmates (Baker, Wang, & Walberg, 1995). The research literature reviewed for this study was mixed regarding whether academic outcomes for students with disabilities are improved in inclusive classroom settings. Previous research suggested that students with SLD in elementary schools achieve more academically in inclusive programs versus non-inclusive programs (Banerji & Dailey, 1995; Waldron & McLeskey, 1998). Other studies suggested that middle school students achieve more academically in inclusive programs (Rea, McLaughlin, & Walther-Thomas, 2002). For example, Rea et al. (2002) reported that students with disabilities had higher grades, fewer behavioral infractions, and attended school more often than students educated in non-inclusive programs. In contrast, a number of other studies concluded that students with disabilities achieved more in inclusive classroom settings (Baker, et al., 1995; Madden & Slavin, 1983; Carlberg & Kavale, 1980). The only certainty regarding the effects of class placement is that there is no consensus. Researchers have drawn vastly different conclusions (Carlberg & Kavale, 1980) such as: (a) Students with severe learning disabilities and emotional and behavioral disorders may achieve more in special classrooms (Carlberg & Kavale, 1980); (b) Students with disabilities may achieve more academically in programs that combine the inclusive model with the resource model as opposed to either model on its own (Holloway, 2001); and (c) Inclusive versus non-inclusive placements produce no differences in the academic achievement of students with disabilities (Affleck, Madge, Adams, & Lavenbraun, 1988; Manset & Semmel, 1997; Waldron & McLeskey, 1998). Another perspective voiced is that the frequently posed question of class placement is the wrong question to consider (Leinhardt & Palloy, 1982; Zigmond, 2003; Hocutt, 1996). Researchers taking this position point out that the evidence is inconclusive on whether students with disabilities achieve more in one instructional setting as opposed to another, and contend that questions regarding class placement for students with disabilities are at odds with a focus on individualized educational planning. …

ABSTRACTAs we attempt to address the needs of students with challenging behaviors in today's classrooms, it is important to gain an understanding of general and special educators' knowledge, skills, and confidence about evidence-based behavior interventions. This article presents a national survey study of 277 special and general educators' reported behavioral knowledge and skills. Results indicated the special educators had greater knowledge about primary, secondary, and tertiary behavioral interventions than general educators. Over half of the combined educators had a less than average understanding of universal bully prevention strategies. Results also indicated the general educators had a lower level of training and confidence to work with students with challenging behaviors. Practical implications for teacher education and further research are presented.

Tiffany, a 10th-grade student with a learning disability, attends general education classes except for a special education study skills class that is devoted to developing improved learning strategies. At the beginning of the school year, Mr. Manning, Tiffany’s special education teacher, met with her general education teachers to review Tiffany’s learning needs and to identify ways to ensure her success. Ms. Uyehara, her history teacher, expressed particular concern about having Tiffany in her class. Ms. Uyehara was unsure of what to do and requested additional assistance from Mr. Manning. Ms. Uyehara is not alone. More and more students with disabilities are receiving special education services in the general education classroom. In fact, 75% of the students with disabilities served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) are educated in general education classrooms (U.S. Department of Education, 2000). At the same time, schools are experiencing an increase in the number of students identified as “at-risk” due to environmental, interpersonal, and familial factors (McWhirter, McWhirter, McWhirter, & McWhirter, 1998). Many at-risk students do not qualify for special education services, but nonetheless would benefit from individualized attention in the general classroom. Given the number of students needing individual assistance in the general classroom, teachers need strategies to assist them in making appropriate modifications and adaptations to their curriculum, instruction, and learning environment. In Tiffany’s case, Mr. Manning suggested that he and Ms. Uyehara implement a systematic process whereby they examine Tiffany’s needs within the context of the history class and select, then implement specific adaptations. Mr. Manning and Ms. Uyehara met and completed the following

The current prevalence rates for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) coupled with the mandate to provide services to students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms warrants the need to examine the dynamics of inclusion for students with ASD. Focus groups were conducted with special and general educators at the elementary, middle, and high school levels to determine the needs of students with ASD in fully inclusive settings as well as teachers’ needs in facilitating their students’ success. The study was translational in nature by focusing on the practice and daily experiences of teachers for informing professional development. Teachers highlighted the knowledge and skills teachers need for students with ASD to fully benefit from inclusive educational placements. Those included the need to fully understand ASD, differentiation, and social support strategies for students with autism as well as the strong need for increased collaboration between general and special educators.

Special education consists of specially designed services available for students with disabilities, and should be available across placements. Students with the most significant disabilities continue to be taught in restrictive settings, despite accumulating evidence suggesting their special education services can be delivered effectively in general education settings. Every individualized education program (IEP) must contain a statement describing how the student will be provided a free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment. The present study used content analysis to examine least restrictive environment statements of 88 students’ IEPs to determine what factors, including supplementary aids and services, were considered in making placement decisions. We further analyzed the classes and activities in which students participated in general education settings. Findings reveal supplementary aids and services were not considered in placement decisions, although a number of factors centering on curricular considerations, environmental demands, student deficit, and personnel requirements were noted in making placement decisions. We further found students primarily participated in non-academic instruction while in general education settings. Implications for policy, practice, and research are included.

Camera, 208 Capitalism, scepticism of policies on education in future based on society with influx of, 42 Carnegie Learning, 251-252 Central government, 92 Challenges to inclusion, 84-85 Change of practice concept, 253 Character qualities of sets in twenty-first century, 25-33 communicative competencies, 28-31 digital competencies, 31-33 'grit' for inclusive and special education teachers, 27-28 high self-efficacy, 25-27 Children, rights and characteristics of, 4-5 Children with disabilities in rural areas in Telangana state, providing services to, 174-177 259 Children with special needs in VUCA world, preparation for education administrators to manage education for, 241-244 Chlorpyrifos, 64-65 City local government, 93-99 Civil rights, 39-40 Classic economic liberal theory, 41-42 Classrooms with assistive technology, improving efficiency of, 250-252 Climate change, 64-65 Collaboration, 180 Collaborative learning, 23-24 Communication, 180 channels, 29-30 disabilities, 211 Communicative competencies, 28-31 Community resource persons (CRPs), 175 Competency-based education, 23-24 Complexity, 80-81 Comprehensive teaching strategies, 236 Computer-assisted tools, 128 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (1945), 89-90 Constructive Alignment model, 21 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), 159 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), 158-159 Conversations, feedback and recognition (CFR), 225 Core educational subjects, 179 COVID-19, 18-19, 118-119, 123-124 crisis, 7-8 inclusive learning for students with special needs during, 108-110 learning experiences during, 114-116 learning experiences of KU

ABSTRACTStudent problem behaviors occur across all classroom settings, but preschool children are three times more likely to be expelled than students in kindergarten through twelfth grade. Determining the extent to which preschool students exhibit problem behaviors may help promote preventative practices in early childhood settings. This study examined the natural occurrence of externalizing behaviors within general, at-risk, and special education classrooms. Direct observations were collected across six classrooms to measure student off-task and disruptive behavior. No significant off-task differences were found across the three classroom types. However, a significant difference in disruptive behavior was found between special education and general education classrooms and between special education and at-risk classrooms. Implications and directions for future study are discussed.

Federal legislation such as IDEA (1997) and NCLB (2001) have led to an increase in the number of students with significant disabilities receiving instruction in the general education classroom. This inclusionary movement has established a more diverse student population in which general and special education teachers are responsible for providing instruction that meets the needs of all their students. Although most research focuses on effective inclusionary practices for students with high incidence disabilities (e.g., learning disabilities), literature has revealed a dramatic increase in the number of students with severe/multiple disabilities receiving support in general education settings. Therefore, it is imperative that educators acquire the effective inclusive practices necessary to meet the unique needs of students with severe/multiple disabilities. A review of literature was conducted to determine effective ways to include and support students with severe/multiple disabilities within the general education classroom.

The author presents a three-step process for helping teachers determine how accessible their general education curriculum is for students with disabilities. Checklists, examples, and rubrics guide teachers in analyzing and assessing those dimensions of the general education curriculum that hinder or enhance success for learners with mild to moderate disabilities. Suggestions for strengthening the curriculum and considering creative avenues for modifications are also provided. Special educators who use this process and collaborate with general educators to enhance weak curriculum attributes accrue two major benefits : (a) they improve learning for students with mild to moderate disabilities as well as typical students and students at risk for school failure and (b) they make placement decisions for students with disabilities that are more methodical and individualized, and that may result in the general education setting being the least restrictive environment.

Research indicates that various program models, implemented both in special education and general education, can have moderately positive academic and social impacts for students with disabilities. However, no intervention has been designed that eliminates the impact of having a disability. With few exceptions, students with disabilities have not achieved commensurately with their nondisabled peers; even students with learning disabilities as a group have not been able to achieve at the level of low-achieving nondisabled students. In general, the most effective interventions for students with disabilities, whether in special education or general education settings, have employed intensive and reasonably individualized instruction, combined with careful, frequent monitoring of student progress. There is no compelling evidence that placement rather than instruction is the critical factor in student academic or social success. Further, studies have indicated that typical practice in general education is substantially different from practice in the model programs that showed greatest success for students with disabilities. The interventions that were effective in improving academic outcomes for students with disabilities required a considerable investment of resources, including time and effort, as well as extensive support for teachers. The research does not support full-time inclusion for all students with disabilities. On the contrary, it appears that there is a clear need for special education. At the same time, given adequate resources, schools should be able to assist more students to be more successful in general education settings.

Historically, Western hegemonic order has been established through cultivating and legitimating social categories of difference. Schools, among other institutions, reinforce difference through marking ability, race, and gender to signify which bodies are productive, deficient, or dangerous and therefore in need of control. This process of differentiation and control is evident in the social, political, and education contexts of disabled youth whose race, gender, and sexuality are read, controlled, and resisted through policy and pedagogy. Through the processes of hypervisiblity, pathologization, and underserving of Black girls in schools, and especially within special education, this animates the nexus of gender, race, and disability. Parallels are drawn to paradigms of the female body and femininity, where difference is constructed as inferior to the normative male body. Similarly, special education policy, practice, and literature conceptualize disability as subtractive difference, wherein what is considered a “deficit” relies on a subtractive interpretation of a normative body or a normative way of being. In this regard, disability, gender—and, crucially, race—are often thought of as a negative departure from a normalized embodiment. In special education, such normalized, essentialist approaches to gender, race, and disability contribute to the disproportionate overidentification of some social identities and the underidentification of others, most often along raced and gendered lines. Importantly, disabling processes are institutionalized in education through the mechanism of special education, which not only serves as an instructional and academic response to a student’s disability but also acts as an institutional process that determines a student as disabled. The determination of a student having a disability is mediated through law, policy, and interpersonal interaction between school professionals and parents and caregivers. Disproportionate identification has been the focus of research, and studies show that overidentification occurs most often in disability categories that are considered “subjective”: for instance, specific learning disabilities and emotional disturbances. Such identification has an impact on students’ learning; opportunities to interact with their peers in general education settings; access to high quality, challenging curriculum; and opportunities to engage critical thinking in educational activities that go beyond direct instruction. Disabling processes in schools related to the intersection of disability, gender, and race, in particular, are mediated by the local, cultural interactions of school personnel and are evident in the ways in which Black girls, in particular, are disabled in school.