Collaborative Inclusion: The implications for the learning of pupils considered to have learning difficulties.

University Degree Education and Teaching

…………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Inclusion is often used as an umbrella term by many schools to describe programs for meeting the needs of students with disabilities. There are multiple definitions and interpretations of inclusion (see below), but at the heart of them all is the belief that every student with disabilities has the right to be educated in the general education classroom with his or her non-disabled peers. Students with disabilities who participate in inclusion programs may and often do, continue to receive special assistance or therapy outside of the general education classroom, but most of the instruction still occurs in the general education classroom (Ofsted 2004).

In the USA the federal ‘Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’, IDEA (1990) and its 1997 amendments make it clear that schools have a duty to educate children with disabilities in general education classrooms. While in the UK the revisions to the National Curriculum (DfEE & QCA, 1997, 1999a; 1999b) include the statutory entitlement to learning and education for all pupils. Additionally, the Special Education Needs and Disability Act (2001) provides a legislative framework for inclusion. It strengthens the right of pupils with Special Education Needs (SEN) to attend mainstream schools. Alongside this legislation the Disability Discrimination Act (2001) places new duties on schools not to treat disabled children less favourably than others and to make reasonable adjustments to ensure that they are not disadvantaged.

Many definitions of inclusive education have evolved throughout the world. They range from 'extending the scope of ordinary schools so that they can include a greater diversity of children' (Clark, Dyson and Millward, 1995) to a 'set of principles which ensures that the student with a disability is viewed as a valued and needed member of the community in every respect' (Uditsky, 1993). Some definitions focus on human interaction, Forest and Pearpoint (1992) see inclusion as a way of dealing with difference, while Ballard, 1995; Clark et al., 1995; Rouse and Florian, 1996, adopt an institutional perspective and focus on organisational arrangements and school improvement.

The Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education’s (CSIE) 2004 definition of inclusive education is:

‘All children and young people - with and without disabilities or difficulties - learning together in ordinary pre-school provision, schools, colleges and universities with appropriate networks of support. Inclusion means enabling all students to participate fully in the life and work of mainstream settings, whatever their needs’.

The CSIE go on to state that there are many different ways of achieving this and an inclusive timetable might look different for each student. Additionally they assert that for inclusive education to be effective, Government, local education authorities (LEAs) and schools have to adapt their approach to curriculum, teaching support, funding mechanisms and the built environment.

Inclusion, according to the CSIE, may also be seen as a continuing process of breaking down barriers to learning and participation for all children and young people. Segregation, on the other hand, is a recurring tendency to exclude difference. The CSIE ‘Index for Inclusion’ defines inclusion as:

'the processes of increasing the participation of students in, and reducing their exclusion from, the cultures, curricula and communities of local schools'

(CSIE, 2000)

Inclusion programs are most often associated with students who have severe learning difficulties (Carpenter & Ashdown, 2001). These students may have significant cognitive impairments or communication skill deficits, and they may require extensive support such as on-to-one professional assistance (Clarke, Millward, Dyson & Robson, 1999; Farrell, Balshaw & Polat, 1999; Lacey & Tilstone 2000). Generally though the educational goals for these students focus on developing communication, social, vocational, and related skills.

The implications associated with the inclusion of students with mild/moderate learning difficulties, the largest group of students with disabilities (Department of Health, 2004), differ significantly from those associated with students who have more severe difficulties. Mild/moderate learning difficulties include learning impairments, emotional disturbance, and cognitive impairment. Students with mild/moderate difficulties present unique curricular and instructional challenges because access to and achievement in the general education curriculum is the primary goal of their inclusion (QCA 2005). Their goals focus on reading, writing, mathematics, and critical thinking skills and these goals match the goals set for their non-disabled peers. Although they are working toward common goals, these students frequently struggle in basic skills areas. Their reading and mathematics computation skills may be lower. Their writing skills may need improvement, and they may have behavioral and social problems (Dockrell & McShane, 1993).

Inclusion

Decisions about including students with learning difficulties are frequently oriented towards fitting the student into the existing general education classroom activities and focus primarily on social integration (Scruggs and Mastropieri, 1996). This social integration focus though negates the opportunity for the ‘included’ student to receive instruction in content areas. Ainscow (1995) suggests that integration is about making a limited number of changes and adaptions for pupils with Special Education Needs (SEN) in schools which change little overall. Contary to this inclusion implies the establishment of more fundamental changes and a restructuring to include and support all children (Fredrickson and Cline, 2003). Or as Corbett and Slee (2000) detail, a fundamental reorganisation of schools so that they are intrinsically competent in educating all students in the community. In these circumstances it has been the insufficiency of the educational surroundings which create difficulties rather than the characteristics of students. Therefore the appropriate response to such difficulties, according to Dyson and Millward (2000), is the review and development of the environment rather than individual interventions with students themselves. Ainscow (1994) points out that this would demand a particular approach from teachers:

‘…involves teachers becoming more skilled in interpreting events and circumstances, and using the resources of other people around them as a source of support’.

Some schools are finding new and innovative ways to create learning environments that are responsive to the needs of students with mild/moderate difficulties. One of these approaches is that of ‘Collaborative Inclusion’. This essay willl explore the implications of Collaborative Inclusion for pupils with learning difficulties and comment on its usefulness as a method of improving the learning environment for these pupils.

Collaborative Inclusion is achieved when those skilled in special education serve as specialists to general teachers, collaborating with them in planning and implimenting instructional accomodations and adaptions in the general education environment (Hallanham, Kauffman and Lloyd, 1999). Accommodations are defined as modifications of instructional delivery that assist in meeting the individual needs of students with disabilities without altering the content (King-Sears, 1997). Adaptations are defined as modifications to methods of instructional delivery that assist in the meeting of the individual needs of students with disabilities by altering the content (King-Sears, 1997).

Collaborative and cooperative learning models are, according ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Collaborative and cooperative learning models are, according to Frederickson and Cline (2003), among the best documented methodologies for supporting successful inclusion in classrooms where there is considerable diversity in the student group.

In their work of 1997, Cross and Walker-Knight, reviewed the inclusive provision for students who had SEN and they went on to describe Davidson’s (1994) five characteristics which he recognised as general to all collaborative learning methodologies.

Common task or learning activities suitable for group work – all members of the class or group are aware of the task and complete the work together.
Small-group learning – diverse and varied groups organised by the teacher.
Cooperative behaviour – teacher instruct pupils in the skills to work together.
Positive independence – tasks are prepared so that the only way of achieving a positive outcome is by working together.
Individual responsibility and accountability – Pupils are all responsible for the learning that takes place.

In his work of 1994, Ainscow described schools which were flexible in their response to all children in their community as ‘Moving Schools’. Ainscow (1994) saw these schools as establishments that were responding to and sustaining a curriculum which is built on and emphasises co-operation, planning and engagement in the co-operative task of learning.

‘…a school based upon a co-operative structure is likely to make good use of the expertise of all its personnel, provide sources of stimulation and enrichment that will foster their professional development and encourage positive attitudes to the introduction of new ways of working. In short it provides the culture necessary for helping teachers take responsibility for the learning of all their pupils’. Ainscow (1994)

In his later work of 1999 which followed on from Rosenholtz’ 1991 work, and in some particulars the work of Cross and Walker-Knight (1997) Ainscow emphasises that the solution to raising the achievement and improving the significance of learning for all pupils is to create a ‘moving school’ that is constantly in search of refinements and developments in response to the challenges it meets. Ainscow highlighted 6 conditions as features of ‘moving schools’.

Effective Leadership
Involvement of staff
Collaborative planning
Coordination of strategies in relation to the use of time
Benefits of enquiry and reflection
Staff development policies

Inclusion is a model that emphasises the collaborative efforts and shared responsibility between special and general educators. Inclusion is a collaborative relationship that is difficult for many teachers because in general education it is the system that mostly dictates to the curriculum; while in special education it is the pupil that dictates the curriculum, (Lieberman, 1985). However, successful inclusion is only achieved when both equity and excellence are reached for all students (Lacey 2003).

In the USA federal law mandates placement practices, stressing that students with learning difficulties be educated in the most appropriate place. For students with learning difficulties this ‘appropriate place’ is often in the general education classroom. Two studies have investigated the placement practices for students with learning difficulties from 1978 – 1989 (McLeskey & Pacchiano, 1994) and from 1988 – 1995 (McLeskey, Henry and Axelrod, 1999) using data from the ‘Annual Reports to Congress’.

McLeskey & Pacchiano’s (1994) study revealed that students with learning difficulties were educated in more restrictive settings. In fact, the number of these students educated in separate classes doubled during the time of their 1978 – 1989 study. There was also an increase in the number of pupils identified as have learning difficulties educated in the general classroom too. However, the authors noted that this was the result of increasing numbers of pupils identified and not because of a change in placement practice. McLeskey et al. (1999) went on to find that there was a major increase in the number of pupils with learning difficulties educated in the general classroom, as well as a reduction in the number educated in separate settings. The results of this investigation indicated a significant trend of educating pupils with learning difficulties in the general education environment.

With the increase of pupils with learning difficulties in inclusive settings there have also been reports of a decrease in individual programs for these pupils (Espin, Deno & Albayrak-Kaymack, 1998; Zigmund and Baker, 1995). Espin et al. argued that, ‘special education in inclusive programs is, by design, no longer special’. However, the majority view is that inclusion should and can look different for each pupil. It can be individualised in the same way as other aspects of special education. Being educated in the general classroom does not excuse teachers from providing pupils with learning difficulties opportunities to access the general curriculum and well as appropriate education through specifically designed instruction. However, Zigmund and Baker (1995) themselves also concluded that pupils with SEN were receiving a good general education from dedicated and eager teachers. They also pointed out that special needs teachers were collaboratively acting as co-ordinator, co-planner and co-teacher in addition to making it possible for the class teacher to feel sufficiently positive about working with SEN students and conversely for the pupils to feel positive about their lessons.

Providing Opportunities

It could be argued that the current emphasis on inclusive education is a further step along a historic road that began in the 19th Century with the demand for help, from educators, for children that were excluded from educational planning, (Ainscow 2004).

Ainscow (1999); Booth and Ainscow (1999); Clark, Dyson, Millward and Robinson (1999) and Farrell (2000) have all recently explored activities regarding inclusion practices in schools. The work of these skilled academics points towards a particular number of components that are necessary in preparing practices for moving schools forward in collaborative inclusion:

Begin with current practice and understanding: schools could make better use of their existing capabilities and vision. Ainscow (2004) details how interventions can be attuned to promote engagement between teacher and learner.
See opportunities in difference: seek a more positive view of difference, one that offers surprises and improvisation. Dismantle some of the existing barriers in special needs education and replace them with a response to diversity (Dyson and Millward 2000).
Study obstacles to involvement: Lacey (2003) addresses the issues of bureaucracy in multi-agency collaboration and describes it as often thwarting the dedication of individuals. She provides examples of Multi-Agency work, Keyworking, Work in schools and the Restructuring of Education which can help to overcome these barriers to collaboration.
Use existing resources to aid teaching and learning: schools could make better use of their human resources in order to encourage a friendlier and accommodating classroom. Thomas, Walker and Webb (1998); Clarke et al (1999) identified in-class support as the most commonly used, and to some extent successful, approach to facilitate the inclusion of pupils with learning difficulties into mainstream classrooms.
Peer observation and a language of practice: the traditional school organisation in which teachers rarely have the chance to observe practice presents a particular barrier to progress (Ainscow 2004). This therefore makes it difficult to share ideas and reflect upon styles of delivery. Discussion and video recordings are proving to be one way forward in this respect (Ainscow 2004).
Articulate a vision, set goals, and develop a plan of action: Work with staff to articulate the school's vision for the program and identify the types of outcomes you hope to achieve. Define what your school means by inclusion. Specify the purpose of the program (e.g., to enhance academic outcomes for students with mild/moderate disabilities, to enhance social interactions and skills of students with learning difficulties), and determine the desired outcomes of the effort (Wolfe and Hall 2003). Prepare the school environment for inclusion. Inclusion may require some significant changes in school operations. If teachers already are working in teams, they probably have the skills they need to collaborate with one another. However, if the teams do not include regular special education representation, or if special education teachers do not have an equal voice in the decision making process, changes will be necessary (Fullan and Steigelbauer 1991). It may be necessary to adjust teachers' schedules so that special education teachers and support staff can participate in planning meetings. Early release days can provide teachers with protected time for working on the inclusion program. If it is expected that teachers will complete this important work before school, during lunch, or after school, they may well come to view inclusion as an extra burden rather than an opportunity to work together to meet the needs of all students.
Resource allocation: This may be the biggest challenge of all in a successful inclusion program and the greatest resource requirement is time (Lacey 2000; Thomas, Walker and Webb 1998). Teams need time for planning, for discussing student performance issues, for developing interdisciplinary units, for reflecting on and evaluating past and ongoing efforts, and for developing common interventions and standards. Teams need time to reach consensus on the types of adaptations and modifications to be provided, on marking procedures, and on methods for communicating among themselves concerning student performance (Thousand and Villa 1990).
Teacher Collaboration: One of the most powerful ways to ensure that all students succeed in general education classrooms is to make certain that teachers and staff are committed to the inclusion effort and to meeting the needs of all students (Ainscow 1999). Teachers may be concerned with how the presence of students with disabilities will affect their teaching and their ability to cover the curriculum. They may be concerned about the impact on learning outcomes for the other students in the classroom. And they may be concerned about their workload and their time commitments. Inservice Training in these areas can provide teachers with the understanding, empowerment and encouragement they need to effectively respond to the inclusion of the students with disabilities (Hart 1996). There are many ways in which general and special education teachers can work together. At the most basic level, teachers can share information about the academic and behavioral needs of their students and the strategies and interventions those students require (Thousand and Villa 1990). Regardless of how teachers choose to work together, all students benefit when teachers make a conscious effort to make the curriculum and their instruction more relevant and accessible to all learners (Ainscow and Tweddle 1979; Wolfendale 1987).

The progress of Inclusion

A ‘journey without end’ is the pessimistic and gloomy prognosis for the move towards inclusive education according to Mittler (2000) and there have been strong feelings for and against the practicalities of inclusion for many years (Wilson 2000; Thomas 2000; Dyson and Millward 2003). Recently these feelings have again been raised with the leader of Her Majesties Opposition quoted as saying that a Conservative government would revoke the presumption contained within the 2001 Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (Howard 2005) that:

‘…a child must be educated in a mainstream school unless that is incompatible with parents’ wishes or interferes with other pupils’ education’.

The examination of inclusion and how it might be realised have mostly focused on the world wide human rights and equality of opportunity issues described by Mittler (2000) and Wilson (1999 and 2000). With more parents of children with learning difficulties seeking a mainstream place for their child, educational professionals are increasingly being faced with the task of making these placements successful and for many this can be their first experience of including a child with significant difficulties. It is this that raises the less frequent debate of how and why inclusion might be achieved and the financial use of effective and efficient resources (Rubain 2001).

In the United Kingdom there has been a considered and careful inclusion of pupils with learning difficulties into mainstream schools (Wolger 2003). This methodology as a consequence leaves special schools and mainstream schools working in conjunction with each other; although there are exceptions as in the London Borough of Newham. Burke (1999) though describes how even in this enlightened organisation children with complex needs are either placed outside the authority or in the one remaining special school which exists for that purpose. Thomas et al. (1998) ask why given the moral obligation and the empirical evidence in its favour, inclusion has not progressed at a faster rate. Their contention is that fear of the unknown, inertia and conservatism is where the answer lies. However, there does appear to have been some progression since this work was published. Avaramidis, Bayliss and Burden (2000) investigated the attitudes of teachers towards the inclusion of children with special needs soon after the release of ‘Excellence for All Children’ (1997) and they found that:

Teachers were positive with the overall concept of inclusion.
Teachers asked for more support, resources, training and time.
Children with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties (EBD) were seen as causing greater concern and difficulties.
The importance of training in the formation of positive attitudes to inclusion was stressed.
Teachers that see themselves as competent enough to teach SEN pupils held more positive attitudes towards inclusion.
Local Education Authority (LEA) courses in inclusion were seen to be of better-quality in preparing teachers for dealing with inclusion as opposed to school based In Service Training (INSET). Teachers who had received training of high quality appeared to feel competent in their teaching skills and found the concept of inclusion easier to deal with (Avaramidis et al. 2000).

In support of this work a brief search of the available literature shows that training carries major implications if the promotion of practices that are truly inclusive are to be carried forward (Bowman 1986; Centre and Ward 1987; Ainscow 1991; Leyser, Kapperman and Keller 1994; Teacher Training Agency 1997; Garner 2000; OfSTED 2003 and Dyson and Millward 2003).

Conclusion

Inclusion, as mentioned previously, is part of a much larger picture than just placement in standard classes within schools. Inclusion is being included in life and participating using one's abilities in day to day activities as a member of the community. It is being a part of what everyone else is, and being welcomed and embraced as a member who belongs. Inclusion can occur in schools, churches, playgrounds, work and in recreation.

Human beings, regardless if they happen to have a learning difficulty or not, have basic needs that must be met in order to feel fulfilled (Maslow 1970). The basic needs of food, water and shelter are necessary for us to exist. Therefore, when food and exercise are not properly taken, health and the capacity to function in other areas of life can be adversely affected (Keys 1952). Having meaning and purpose to what and who you are, provides inspiration. Feeling ineffective, unproductive or undertaking issues that are seen as insignificant, decreases motivation and self-esteem (Lawrence 1996). A sense of belonging, being loved, having relationships and friendships with others enriches our lives. Feelings of loneliness and alienation can have a negative impact in all areas of our lives (Lorenz 2002). Education helps meet the need to learn and grow and not remain stagnant, but as with any of our needs, if we focus on one at the expense of the others it will not maximise the overall quality of life. When all these needs are met in an integrated way, each area adds strength in the ability to achieve fulfilment in the other areas (Elliot, Doxey and Stephenson 2004). Inclusion is about meeting all those needs, and maximising a person's overall quality of life.

In school, inclusion does not occur by placement in the regular class alone; rather it is a desired end-state. It should be created with proper planning, preparation, training and supports (Ainscow 1994). The goal of inclusion is achieved only when a pupil is participating in the activities of the class, as a member who belongs, with the supports and services they need. Inclusion is not a trade-off of supports and services for placement in the regular class and is not a trade-off of achievement of individual goals. No matter where a child with learning difficulties is placed, an Individual Education Plan (IEP) must be developed around the child's needs. The IEP objectives must continue to be met in the regular class. The same applies to the related services a child needs, they must continue to be provided for in the regular settings.

The fundamental principle of inclusive education is the valuing of diversity within the human community.... When inclusive education is fully embraced, we abandon the idea that children have to become "normal" in order to contribute to the world....We begin to look beyond typical ways of becoming valued members of the community, and in doing so, begin to realize the achievable goal of providing all children with an authentic sense of belonging. (Kunc 1992).

Inclusion in school requires a shift in the paradigm, instead of getting the pupil ready for the regular class; the regular class gets ready for the pupil (Dyson and Millward 2000; Fredrickson and Cline 2003). It's not a decision of inclusion at zero or one hundred percent, but whatever balance that can be achieved to maximise the meeting all of a pupil's needs. The regular class is not looked at as how it is, but how it can be. Adaptations are made to the materials, the curriculum and/or the expectations of the activities for the individual pupil, maintaining achievement of all individual and academic goals. The purpose isn't simply social or academic, but to meet all of a pupil's needs together wherever possible.

Through inclusive education, children with learning difficulties remain on a path that leads to an adult life as a participating member of society. Meeting all their needs together increases their ability to achieve academic and physical growth to their potential, and it enhances their overall quality of life. Inclusive education teaches all children team work and how to interrelate and function together with others of different abilities. They learn to value diversity, see the ability of others to contribute, and it gives children a sense of unity.

References

Ainscow, M. (1994) Special needs in the classroom: A teacher education guide. London. Jessica Kingsley.

Ainscow, M. (1995) Special needs through school improvement: school improvement through special needs. In Clark, Dyson and Millward (eds) Towards Inclusive Schools? London: David Fulton.

Ainscow, M. (1999) Understanding the Development of Inclusive Schools. London, Falmer Press.

Ainscow, M. (2004) Developing inclusive schools: Implications for Leadership. Discussion document to the National College of School Leadership. Manchester. NCSL.

Ainscow, M. and Tweedle, D. (1979) Preventing Classroom Failure. London. Fulton.

Avaramidis, E., Bayliss, P. and Burden, R. (2000) A Survey into Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Inclusion of Children with SEN in the Ordinary School in one LEA. Educational Psychology, 20 (2). pp 191-211.

Ballard, (1995) Inclusion, Paradigms, Power and Participation. In Clark, Dyson and Millward (eds) Towards Inclusive Schools? London: David Fulton.

Booth, T. and Ainscow, M. (eds), (1998) From them to us: An International Study of Inclusion in Education. London, Routledge Falmer.

Bowman, I. (1986) Teacher Training and the Integration of Handicapped Pupils: some findings from a 14 nation UNESCO study. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 1, pp 29-38.

Burke, B. (1999) LEA Support Services: a Newham Perspective. In Norwich, B. (ed) Rethinking support for more Inclusive Schooling. Tamworth. NASEN.

Carpenter, B. and Ashdown, R. (2001) Enabling Access. In Carpenter, B., Ashdown, R., and Bovair, K. (eds) Enabling Access. London. Fulton.

Centre, Y. and Ward, J. (1987) Teachers’ Attitudes Towards the Integration of Disabled Children into Regular Schools. The Exceptional Child, 34, pp 41-56.

Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education. [WWW]

csiehome.htm (17th March 2005).

Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education. Index for Inclusion: Developing Learning and Participation in Schools. Bristol: CSIE and London: DfEE.

Clark, C., Dyson, A., & Millward, A. (1995) Towards inclusive schools? London: David Fulton.

Clark, C., Dyson, A., & Millward, A. and Robson, S. (1999) Theories of Inclusion, Theories of Schools: deconstructing and reconstructing the ‘inclusive school’. British Education Research Journal, 25, pp157-177.

Corbett, J. and Slee, R. (2000) An International Conversation on Inclusive Education. In Armstrong, F., Armstrong, D. and Barton, L. (eds) Inclusive Education: Policy Contexts and Comparative Perspectives. London. Fulton.

Cross, L. and Walker-Knight, D. (1997) Inclusion: developing collaborative and co-operative school communities. The Educational Forum, 61, pp269-277.

Davidson, N. (1994) Cooperative and collaborative learning: an integrative perspective. In Thousand, J., Villa, R. and Nevin, A. (eds) Creativity and Collaborative Learning: A practical guide for empowering students and teachers. Baltimore. PH Brooks.

Department for Education and Employment (1997) Excellence for all Children: Meeting Special Education Needs. London: The Stationary Office.

Department of Health. [WWW] . (14th February 2005).

DfEE (1997) Excellence for all Children: meeting special education needs. London. DfEE.

DfEE and QCA (1999a) The National Curriculum Handbook for Primary Teachers in England. London: HMSO.

DfEE and QCA (1999b) The National Curriculum Handbook for Secondary Teachers in England. London: HMSO.

Disability Discrimination Act (2001) London: HMSO.

Dockrell, J. and McShane, J. (1992) Children’s Learning Difficulties: A cognitive approach. Oxford. Blackwell.

Dyson, A. and Millward, A. (2000) Falling down the interfaces: from inclusive schools to an exclusive society. In Ballard, K. (ed) Inclusive Education: International Voices on Disability and Justice. London. Falmer Press.

Elliot, N., Doxey, E. and Stephenson, V. (2004) Inclusion Pocketbook. London. Teachers’ Pocket Books.

Espin, C., Deno, S. and Albayrak-Kaymack, D. (1998) Individualised education programs in resource and inclusive settings: How individualised are they? Journal of Special Education, 32 (3) pp164-174.

Farrell, P. (2000) The Impact of research on developments in inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 4 (2), pp 153 -162.

Farrell, P., Bradshaw, M. and Polat, F. (1999) The Management Role and Training of Learning Support Assistants (Research Report RR161. London: DfEE.

Forest, M., and Pearpoint, J. (1992) Putting all kids on the MAP. Educational Leadership, 50 (2), 26-31.

Frederickson, N. and Cline, T. (2003) Special Education Needs, Inclusion and Diversity: a textbook. Maidenhead. Open University Press.

Fullan, M. and Stiegelbauer, S. (1991) The New Meaning of Educational Change. London, Cassell.

Garner, P. (1996) Students views on Special Education Needs courses in initial teacher education. British Journal of Special Education. 23 (4), pp. 176-179.

Hallanhan, D., Kaufmann, J. and Lloyd,. (1999) Introduction to Learning Disabilities. 2nd Edition. Boston. Allyn & Bacon.

Hart, S. (1996) Beyond Special Needs: Enhancing Children’s Learning Through Innovative Thinking. London. Paul Chapman.

Howard, M. (2005) In Press – The Guardian 7.3.05. “Conservative Special Needs Pledge”. London.

Individuals with Disabilities Act (1990). Library of Congress. Washington: Federal Library Archive.

Key, S. (1952) Experimental introduction of psychoneuroses by starvation. The biology of mental health and disease, 27th Annual Conference. In Child, D., Psychology and the Teacher. London, Cassell.

King-Sears, M. (1997) Best academic practices for inclusive classrooms. Focus on exceptional children, 29(7), pp1 – 22.

Kunc, M. (1992)

Lacey, P. (2003) Effective Multi-Agency Work. In Tilstone, C. and Rose, R. (eds) Strategies to Promote Inclusive Practice. London. Routledge Falmer.

Lacey, P. (2000) Including Pupils with Severe Learning Difficulties. Presentation at the International Special Education Congress 2000. University of Manchester. 24th -28th July 2000.

Lawrence, D. (1996) Enhancing Self – Esteem in the Classroom. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Leyser, Y., Kapperman, G. and Keller, R. (1994) Teacher attitudes towards mainstreaming: a cross-cultural study in six nations. European Journal of Special Education Needs. 9, pp 1-15.

Lieberman, D. (1999) Learning: Behaviour and Cognition. London. Wadsworth.

Lorenz, S. (2002) First Steps in Inclusion. London, Fulton.

Maslow, A. (1970) Motivation and Personality. New York, Harper Row.

McLeskey, J. and Pacchiano, D. (1994) Mainstreaming students with learning disabilities: Are we making progress? Exceptional Children, 60 (6), pp 508-517.

McLeskey, J., Henry, D. and Axelrod, H. (1999) Inclusion of Students with Learning Difficulties: an examination of data from reports to congress. Exceptional Children, 66 (1), pp 55-66.

Mittler, P. (2000) Working Towards Inclusive Education: Social Contexts. London. Fulton.

Office for Standards in Education (2004) Special Education Needs and Disability: Towards Inclusive Schools. October 2004. London: Crown Publishers.

Rosenholtz, S. (1991) Teachers’ Workplace: The Social Organisation of Schools. New York. Teachers College Press.

Rouse, M. & Florian, L. (1997) Inclusive Education in the Marketplace. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1 (4), p323-336.

Rubain, D. (2001) Transforming Legislation. In The Times Educational Supplement (Curriculum Special) 6th April 2001).

Scruggs, T. and Mastripieri, M. (1995) What makes special education special? Evaluating inclusion programmes with PASS variables. Journal of Special Education, 29(2), pp224-233.

Special Education Needs and Disability Act (2001) London: HMSO.

Thomas, G., Walker, D. and Webb, J. (1998) The Making of an Inclusive School. London. Routledge Falmer.

Thousand, J. and Villa, R. (1990) Sharing Expertise and Responsibilities Through Teaching Teams. In Stainback, W. (ed) Support Networks for Inclusive Schooling: Independent Integrated Education. Baltimore. Brookes.

Teacher Training Agency (1998) National Standards for SEN Coordinators. London. TTA.

Uditsky, B. (1993) From Integration to Inclusion: the Canadian Experience. In R. Slee (ed) Is there a desk with my name on it? The Politics of Integration. London: Falmer Press.

Wilson, J (1999) Some Conceptual Difficulties about Inclusion. Support for Learning. 14 (3). pp. 110-112.

Wilson, J. (2000) Doing Justice to Inclusion. European Journal of Special Needs Education. 15 (3), pp 297-304.

Wolfe, P. and Hall, T. (2003) Making Inclusion a Reality for Students with Severe Disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35 (4), pp 56-60.

Wolfendale, S. (2000) Journeys in Inclusive Education: Profiles and Reflections. In Clough, P. and Corbett, J. (eds) Theories of Inclusive Education: A students guide. London. Paul Chapman.

Wolger, J. (2003) The Tide has Turned. In Tilstone, C. and Rose, R. Strategies to Promote Inclusive Practice. London. Routledge Falmer.

Zigmund, N. and Baker,. (1995) Concluding comments: current and future practices in inclusive education. The Journal of Special Education, 29(2), pp 245-250

Collaborative Inclusion: The implications for the learning of pupils considered to have learning difficulties.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Document Details

Related Essays

Inclusion: Providing effective learning for pupils with English as an Addit...

Literature Review: Teaching and Learning for L(IT)eracy: the use of Informa...

Pupils With Learning Difficultiesm and precision teaching.

Addressing Literacy Problems Encountered by Year 3 Pupils with Learning Dif...