Do separate class placements "work" for students with disabilities?
Do separate class placements "work" for students with disabilities?
During the past 30 years, numerous articles, literature reviews, and books have addressed the effectiveness of separate class placements for students with disabilities (most often mild disabilities such as mild mental retardation and learning disabilities).1 The primary question posed is: When compared to placement in general education classrooms, do separate class placements improve the academic and social progress of students with disabilities? Intuitively, it would seem that taking a student with a disability out of a general education classroom, placing the student with a small and homogeneous group of students in a less distracting setting, reducing the teacher/student ratio, and providing individualized instruction would be beneficial. However, in contrast to what one might expect, the vast majority of available research has failed to demonstrate the effectiveness of such programs.
Probably the most obvious reason that separate class programs have failed is that these programs have not met the high standards that have been set by those who have described the ideal program. For example, it has proved very difficult to individualize or differentiate instruction for students in these separate class programs. Furthermore, the "curriculum" offered by special education often lacks coherence, consisting instead of disjointed activities that are used to develop basic literacy and numeracy skills; it often does not focus on higher-level cognitive skills; and it often lacks the richness of the general education curriculum. Finally, the curriculum offered in separate special education classes is usually not coordinated with or supportive of the general education curriculum.
Personal experiences with these programs provide some insight into why they do not work. Think for a moment about a boy in the fourth grade who has a reading problem. This student is identified as having a learning disability and is pulled out of his general education classroom during morning language arts for small-group instruction in reading in a separate, special education classroom. Placed in this separate classroom at the same time are five other students from grades 4 to 6, all of whom are at different reading (and language) levels.
First, this student is not receiving additional instruction in language arts. Rather, the special class instruction replaces instruction provided in the general education classroom. Second, it is likely that the teacher in the special education classroom will use materials and methods that differ significantly from those being used in the general education classroom. For example, the teacher in the general education classroom may be using a whole language approach to instruction, while the teacher of students with disabilities uses a highly structured, skills-based approach. Third, why take a student with a reading problem and put him with others who have the same type of problem? It seems likely that none of these students will exhibit much enthusiasm for reading. Indeed, they may become quite frustrated when they are asked to read. Where in this setting are the good models for reading -- the students who attend well, enjoy reading, read for pleasure, and so forth? Some of the students in the special education classroom will probably also exhibit behavior problems because of their frustration at not learning to read, while others will be inattentive and have difficulty concentrating on the reading content at hand. These are the behaviors -- rather than good reading behaviors -- that their peers are likely to learn from them.
There is also the likelihood that the individual needs of these students will vary significantly, according to their reading ability, language skills, willingness to participate, and so forth. They will not constitute a "homogeneous group." If the teacher of students with disabilities uses a skills-based approach to reading instruction, as is most often the case, she may have students on three, four, or even five different reading levels at once. How can a teacher provide individualized instruction for each of these students, as well as for the 20 or more other students she will teach during the school day? How can the teacher find time to consult with classroom teachers, learn about the curricula of general education classrooms at three grade levels, and coordinate the curriculum of the special class with the curricula of the general education classrooms? Often the time cannot be found.
A final question is, How can teachers in separate, special classrooms know how much to expect of their students? Many of the teachers we interviewed shared with us the frustration they felt when they began to teach in inclusive programs and realized that they had expected far too little of the students they had taught in separate special education classrooms. These teachers noted that they had lost perspective by always working with students with "problems" and did not have a realistic idea of what a typical general education student could and should achieve. Once the students with disabilities (and their teachers) were in general education classrooms, the teachers significantly increased their expectations of them.
With all these factors in mind, it should become obvious why research has most often failed to support the effectiveness of separate class placements for students with disabilities. These disappointing results have occurred in spite of many years of intensive effort on the part of professionals to develop model programs and instructional materials for these settings.
So why does that lead to the conclusion that inclusive programs will work?
It doesn't. Recent evidence reveals that effective inclusive school programs can be developed as classrooms and schools are restructured to better meet student needs. However, evidence also exists that some poor examples of inclusive school programs have been implemented, in which students with disabilities were returned to general education classrooms with little planning, minimal changes in the classroom, and insufficient support for the general education teacher.
As any teacher knows, students with disabilities are labeled and removed from the general education classroom because, after the best efforts of the classroom teacher, the needs of the student are not being met. To return the student to the same classroom, under the same circumstances (e.g., same level of teacher support), is irresponsible and will not lead to a good instructional program for the student. Indeed, unless major changes occur in general education classrooms and schools, the likelihood is strong that students with disabilities who are placed back into these settings will not receive significant benefits.
Consider, for example, the fourth-grader with a learning disability who was mentioned above. If that student's teacher has 27 other students in her fourth-grade class, believes that each of these students must master the fourth-grade curriculum, grades all students using the same criteria, and receives little or no direct classroom support from the special education teacher, then the student with a disability will probably become increasingly frustrated in this classroom, as will his teacher. On the other hand, if the teacher alters her curriculum, instruction, and grading to better meet the student's needs and has support in the classroom from a teacher of students with disabilities, then the likelihood that the student's needs will be met in the general education classroom is greatly enhanced.
Are you saying that the teacher should alter her entire approach just to meet the needs of one student? What about attending to the needs of typical students?
No, the teacher should not alter her approach for one student. One of the criticisms of inclusion in many schools is that too much is being made of the needs of one small group of students. We agree with this statement if inclusion benefits only students with disabilities. Rather, a primary goal of inclusion should be to allow teachers in general education classrooms to better meet the needs of ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Are you saying that the teacher should alter her entire approach just to meet the needs of one student? What about attending to the needs of typical students?
No, the teacher should not alter her approach for one student. One of the criticisms of inclusion in many schools is that too much is being made of the needs of one small group of students. We agree with this statement if inclusion benefits only students with disabilities. Rather, a primary goal of inclusion should be to allow teachers in general education classrooms to better meet the needs of all students. This will most likely include not only students with disabilities but also slow learners, students who are perceived to be at risk of school failure, students who learn the curricular material quickly and become bored, students with attentional problems, and so forth. Improved instruction, a curriculum that is more child-centered, collaboration with other teachers to address student problems, and a range of other features of inclusive classrooms should allow this objective to be met.
Research evidence indicates that, in successful inclusion programs, the academic and social attainments of typical students are at least equal to, if not greater than, those of similar students who are in non-inclusive settings. Furthermore, interviews we have conducted with teachers in inclusive programs indicate that one of the greatest strengths of these programs is the benefits that accrue to students who are not eligible for special education services, especially students who have difficulty in class but "fall through the cracks" of the eligibility system for special education (e.g., a student who is behind in reading, but not far enough behind to be labeled with a learning disability).
Should the goal of our program be "full inclusion"?
Some educators have begun to use the term "full inclusion" as a guiding theme or goal as they develop inclusive school programs. This concept implies that the purpose of inclusion is to include all students for all of the school day in every school setting, preschool through high school. The movement for full inclusion has been criticized for concentrating on the "place" in which students are educated at the expense of their individual needs and the quality of the education they receive.12 To some extent, we agree with this criticism. Moreover, we feel that full inclusion is not a reasonable guiding theme for the development and implementation of inclusive school programs.
We have found that a better guiding theme for developing inclusive school programs is the concept of normalization. Normalization, simply stated, means that students with disabilities will be given the opportunity to live their lives in a manner that is as typical or normal as possible. This objective means that schools should prepare students with disabilities to live their lives as independently as possible, in as typical a setting as possible. Furthermore, normalization suggests that the "rhythm of the school day" for students with disabilities should be as similar as possible to what is experienced by typical students.
An example of this principle in a school setting will help to clarify how it is applied. In an inclusive fourth-grade classroom, a classroom teacher and a teacher of students with disabilities were teaming to teach mathematics. As the class was reviewing mathematics problems prior to a test, the teacher of students with disabilities was going over the material with the class, while the classroom teacher was drifting around the room to respond to questions and to keep students on task. At the end of the review session, the teacher of students with disabilities asked all the students if they would like to have the test read to them. Approximately one-half of the students in the class (including students with disabilities and students who were not thus labeled) raised their hands and subsequently left the classroom to have the test read, while the other students remained in the general education classroom to complete the test.
Two factors stand out in this setting with regard to normalization. First, neither of the teachers was readily identifiable as the "special" teacher. They shared roles, so both of them worked with students with difficulties as well as with typical students. Second, when the students were asked if they wanted to have the test read, everyone was given the option of leaving the classroom, not just students with disabilities. Thus, although some students were "pulled out" of the classroom, the concept of normalization was not violated, and the "rhythm of the school day" for all students was similar.
So who should be included and who should not?
Students who benefit academically and socially from the education they receive in general education classrooms should be included in those settings. It has been our experience that, with changes (albeit substantial changes), the general education classroom can meet the needs of the vast majority of students with disabilities. However, some students will receive greater academic and social benefits from placement in settings other than the general education classroom.
When determining who should be included, it is important to consider the age of the student. There are times, such as in high school, when the community is a more appropriate setting for much of the school day for a student with a disability. Learning to live and work in the "real world" is a more important and immediate goal for these students than is learning algebra or socializing with other students in an algebra classroom.
We have found that the best method for resolving the issue of where an education ought to occur is to use normalization as a guiding theme and to ask questions such as: What setting will provide experiences that best prepare the student to live a life that is as typical and independent as possible? Can the needs of the student be successfully met in a general education classroom? Can intensive, short-term services in a separate setting be provided that will give the student skills to function better in a "real-world" setting such as a general education classroom?
What about including students with severe behavior problems, especially those who are extremely aggressive?
In every setting where we have worked, there have been a few students for whom an appropriate, full-time educational program in the general education setting could not be developed. These students are most often labeled seriously emotionally handicapped and exhibit extremely aggressive behaviors. Placing these students in a general education classroom not only does not meet their needs, but it also seriously disrupts the education of other students and contributes greatly to the stress of teaching.
Although we readily admit that some students must be removed from general education classroom settings, we also have some qualms about this removal. Think for a moment about an aggressive student who is disruptive to others in a general education classroom and must be removed from this setting. This student is often placed in a separate class with other students who have histories of similar aggressive, disruptive, or maladaptive behaviors. We all know that students learn a great deal from one another. Where are the good models for appropriate behavior in such a setting? The most obvious behaviors that students bring to share with others in a separate class of this sort are their maladaptive behaviors. Furthermore, because of the range of problem behaviors that are exhibited in this separate class setting, one of the major goals of the teacher must be to keep students' behavior under control. While the students' behavior may indeed be controlled in this separate class, this approach may not lead to their learning to control their own behavior, or to deal with their anger, or to get along with peers and resolve conflicts. In short, separate classes are often a means of controlling students' behavior rather than of providing students with skills that will yield success in life.
With these thoughts in mind, it is important that we continue to attempt to include students with serious emotional handicaps whenever and wherever possible, so that they have opportunities to learn to get along with peers in a real-world setting. In addition, it is important that the separate classroom be regarded as a temporary setting for these students, with an emphasis on preparing them to succeed in getting along with peers in typical school settings.
A second issue related to students with serious emotional handicaps is also worthy of mention. We have worked in several settings in which teams planning to move toward inclusion have entertained the notion that all students labeled with serious emotional handicaps should be excluded from general education classrooms. On further reflection, these teams typically determine that students labeled with emotional handicaps vary greatly. Some are aggressive, many are not. Some of these students need extraordinary levels of support to keep them from harming themselves or others, while other students with the same label are not dangerous. Furthermore, some of these students benefit greatly from placement in a general education classroom, where they have opportunities for learning prosocial behaviors from typical peers who provide good role models, while others can successfully interact with typical peers only on an infrequent basis and for short periods of time. Thus decisions about the inclusion of students with serious emotional handicaps must be made on a student-by-student basis.
So pull-outs can occur within an inclusive setting?
Yes. Pull-outs are appropriate and necessary in some instances. The criterion we use for judging the appropriateness of pull-out programs is whether they meet the previously mentioned objective of normalization. That is, if pulling students out is part of the "rhythm of the school day" for all students in a school, then it can certainly be part of the rhythm of the day for students with disabilities. For example, some schools regroup all students at one or more grade levels for reading instruction. Under these circumstances, students at all ability levels move about for instruction and may move from one classroom to another. In other schools, teachers may regroup students for reading instruction within a single classroom. Under these circumstances, some students may need more intensive instruction for a short period of time to work on basic skills that are lacking or need further development.
As was previously noted, students who exhibit extremely aggressive behavior -- which makes it difficult, if not impossible, to continue instruction in the classroom -- may need to be pulled out. In some instances, these students require short-term services in a separate classroom setting. Still other students may benefit from being pulled out for a short time and going to a classroom or other setting in the school to "cool off" and regain control of their behavior.
I've heard that most classroom teachers oppose inclusion. What if teachers won't cooperate?
There have been many studies that seem to reveal strong opposition to inclusion, especially on the part of classroom teachers. However, it is important to keep in mind that the teachers surveyed in these studies were not involved in developing or implementing inclusive school programs. That is, they were asked to speculate about hypothetical situations. In effect, these teachers were asked if they would like to become involved in an ill-defined program that would require them to teach the students with the most significant learning and behavior problems in their school. Such a program would be difficult to design and implement and would result in many frustrating, anxiety-provoking changes in teachers' professional lives. Under such circumstances, it is quite understandable that teachers would oppose "inclusion."
In contrast to these studies, others have explored teacher support for inclusion under more reasonable circumstances. For example, in a study by Brenda Myles and Richard Simpson, elementary teachers were initially given a description of a student with a mild learning, cognitive, or behavioral disability. They were then asked to select a classroom modification that would convince them to accept the student in their classrooms. Myles and Simpson found that about one-third of the respondents were willing to accept the student without any of the listed modifications. In addition, 54% of the teachers were willing to accept the student with teacher-chosen modifications. Finally, the investigators found that 14% of the teachers would be unwilling to accept the students into their classes, even with modifications or support. Similar findings resulted when a comparable investigation was conducted with middle-level educators.
What these studies, along with our experiences in schools, seem to reveal is that about two to three of every 10 teachers are supportive of inclusion, require very little convincing that inclusion is appropriate for students with disabilities, and will form the core group for initial program development. In addition, approximately five to six of every 10 teachers have reservations about inclusion but will cooperate if the program is a good one that is presented to them in a clear manner and if they are involved in decision making regarding the program. Finally, about one to two of every 10 teachers seem to oppose inclusion and often continue to oppose such programs even after they are developed and implemented.
If that's the case, then why does it seem that so many teachers oppose inclusion?
While our experiences and some research reveal that 80% to 90% of teachers are supportive of inclusion, it is important to keep in mind that these numbers reflect teacher support for good inclusion programs, which are carefully developed and implemented. In contrast, many of those who are most strongly opposed to inclusion are teachers who have experienced attempts to implement bad inclusion programs. We have found that opposition to inclusion can approach 100% of teachers when the program is poorly implemented -- that is, when teachers have little or no involvement in planning, when they are not supported in the general education classroom, or when inclusion is simply mandated. We have invariably found that a good index of the quality of an inclusion program is the level of teacher support. The vast majority of teachers are supportive of good inclusion programs, while the vast majority of teachers are opposed to bad inclusion programs, as they should be.
But don't some teachers have a good point when they say that students with disabilities cannot do the work they require in their classes?
This is one of the most common questions we get regarding inclusion. This issue arose a few years ago during a panel discussion arranged by a local school district. A panel of teachers was discussing inclusion before a group of parents, teachers, and administrators. One of the teachers on the panel stated that she could include some students with learning disabilities in her sixth-grade science class if they could read the required material, understand all of the grade-level concepts, and pass tests related to this material. However, no student labeled mildly mentally handicapped could be included in her class, since these students could not meet the aforementioned criteria.
This teacher was, of course, correct. As long as she held the belief that all students must meet arbitrary criteria for success in her classroom, students with mild mental handicaps (and probably many students with learning disabilities) could not be successfully included in her class. Indeed, if they were "included" in this setting, they would inevitably fail.
There is no doubt that if teachers believe that all students must achieve the same level of mastery of the same curricular material at the same age, inclusive programs are destined to fail. By definition, students with disabilities cannot master curriculum as do typical students, at least in their area of disability. For example, a student with a reading problem is so labeled because that student cannot do what other students can do in reading at a comparable age. This is not to say that this student cannot learn to read, or that he or she cannot learn curricular material by means other than reading. In addition, the student is likely to have strengths in other areas, such as mathematics or art. Indeed, students with disabilities are often capable of learning many things that typical students learn, if adaptations are made in how they are taught, how long they are given to learn curricular material, what they must learn, and how they are tested and graded.
The sixth-grade teacher's perspective seems to reflect a relatively widespread belief that students with disabilities should be returned to the general education classroom only if their disabilities are "cured." If this belief prevails, most persons with disabilities will never be included. Indeed, data indicate that academic difficulties are enduring, even for students with the mildest of disabilities, learning disabilities. Some research has indicated that the reading skills of many of these students tend to plateau at about the sixth-grade level. This is not to say that these students are not capable of learning; indeed, many go on to achieve great success in life. However, adaptations are necessary if they are to be exposed successfully to the rich curriculum of the general education classroom.
Are teachers of students with disabilities the strongest supporters of inclusive programs as they are being planned, developed, and implemented?
On the contrary, we have found that, as a group, teachers of students with disabilities are likely to be stronger opponents of inclusion than are classroom teachers. It is not difficult to understand why this is the case. While classroom teachers must make changes to accommodate students with disabilities, they are still able to maintain their own classrooms, curricula, and many other familiar aspects of their teaching world. In contrast, teachers of students with disabilities must make the greatest changes in their professional roles if inclusive programs are to succeed. These teachers must give up their classrooms, give up their separate curricula, negotiate roles with several classroom teachers, face the possibility that they will be relegated to the role of instructional assistants in the general education classroom, learn the curricula and classroom routines of other teachers, and make a variety of other changes. It is logical that the person who is required to change the most will be the most resistant to change.
These comments are not meant as a criticism of teachers of students with disabilities. Any teacher or other professional would and should register concerns if such major changes were occurring in his or her professional life. In addition, many of the objections that these teachers raise stem from a concern for the quality of education that will be provided to students with disabilities in settings that have, in the past, been less than accommodating to these students.
So what is a good inclusion program?
We use four criteria to judge inclusive programs. First, a good inclusion program is one in which students with disabilities make at least as much academic and social progress as they would in a separate classroom. Second, good inclusion is reflected in academic and social progress for typical students -- progress that is at least as great as these students would make in noninclusive classrooms. Third, good inclusion ensures that teachers are supported as they make the necessary classroom adaptations to meet student needs and that they are actively involved in determining the form of this support. This criterion should be reflected in widespread teacher support for the inclusion program once it has been implemented. Finally, good inclusion programs reflect the concept of normalization; that is, the rhythm of the day for students with disabilities is as similar as possible to the rhythm of the day for typical students.
So what is a good model we can use for inclusion?
As Michael Fullan and Susan Stiegelbauer have pointed out, there are two perspectives on the issue of models and school change. One perspective holds that models that "work" have already been developed. Thus the goal of advocates of school reform is to convince those who will be making the changes to adopt and implement these models faithfully. It is assumed that, once such a highly prescribed model is in place, the needs of students will be appropriately addressed. If the needs of students are not being met under these circumstances, then the cause of the problem is assumed to be faulty implementation of the model. Such an approach to reform seriously underestimates the complexity of schools, the differences that exist across school settings, and the desire for input and ownership on the part of teachers, administrators, and others involved in school change. Moreover, we have found that such prescribed models, which are often brought into a local school system by outsiders who are unfamiliar with and uninvolved in the local school setting, invariably face much resistance from teachers and administrators and often are not implemented faithfully.
In contrast to this perspective on school change is the view that change should be developed and implemented by professionals at the local school level and tailored to the individual needs of the school. What this means, then, is that decisions regarding inclusive school programs should be school-based. Thus inclusive programs will differ from school to school, depending on the strengths and weaknesses of the faculty members involved, the characteristics of the student population, the resources available in the school setting, the degree of administrative support for inclusion, and a plethora of other factors. This perspective respects the professionalism of teachers and administrators and assumes that they should be the key participants in developing and implementing their schools' own inclusive programs.
We still need to address a final issue regarding the development of inclusive school programs. We have found that, because local schools are constantly changing, it is best to consider inclusive school programs as "works in progress." Thus, even after a program is developed and implemented, it will need to be modified as changes occur in the local school. Such changes might include an influx of a large number of students with disabilities at the beginning of the school year, a decision on the part of teachers at the end of the first grading period that the program needs to be modified to better meet the academic or social needs of certain students, or the arrival of new teachers at the beginning of the second year of the program's implementation.
So there's no model for program development. Then how do we develop a good inclusive program?
It is not easy. One of the most difficult challenges that schools undertake is changing to accommodate students with disabilities. Numerous changes are required. Frustration and anxiety are great. But the benefits for teachers, administrators, parents, and -- most important -- students are well worth it. It is our experience that there are three steps or stages in developing inclusive programs. These stages are not necessarily sequential; that is, one does not have to master a step before moving on to the next. However, they are intimately interrelated and influence one another greatly.
The first stage is addressing teacher beliefs and values concerning inclusive schooling. We have found that the beliefs of many teachers about students, about how schools should be organized, and about the value of educating students with disabilities are critical factors that must be examined, reflected on, and changed if inclusion programs are to be effective. Is it worth it to go through all the anxiety of changing how teachers conduct their daily professional activities for a group of students with disabilities? Are teachers willing to modify curricula, instruction, and grading for students with disabilities? Do teachers believe that students with disabilities should be "cured" before returning to the general education classroom? Should teachers have different expectations and standards for success for different students? Do teachers understand the use of normalization as a guiding theme for inclusion? Topics such as these must be addressed as teachers begin to develop an inclusive program for their school. We have found that the single best method for dealing with many of these considerations is to have teachers visit a good inclusive school program, observe in classrooms, and discuss with teachers in the host school the beliefs and values that guide their program.
The second stage in developing a good inclusion program is careful planning. It is our experience that such planning often takes a full year and entails extensive meetings, discussions, staff development, visits to good inclusion sites, detailed analysis of the local school (e.g., resources available, attitudes of teachers, willingness of teachers to participate), and a variety of other activities on the part of school faculty members and administrators. Furthermore, program planning and development are carried out on a school-by-school basis. As was previously noted, there are no models or other "shortcuts" for developing good inclusive school programs.
The third stage is the actual implementation and maintenance of the inclusive program. This stage is the most difficult and results in the highest levels of frustration and anxiety for school personnel. The frustration and anxiety spring, in large part, from the many changes in role and function that are required of all teachers who are involved in inclusive school programs. In addition, as the program is implemented, teachers quickly realize that changes will be ongoing as they modify the program to better meet the shifting needs of students and faculty members. Teachers and administrators at this stage require continuing time for joint planning, whether with an entire team (e.g., a team of primary-level teachers) or with one other colleague (e.g., a co-teacher). This planning time provides the opportunity for educators to continue to adapt their "work in progress" as they carefully plan changes and improvements.
Many more questions will certainly arise as teachers and administrators develop and implement inclusive school programs. Our hope is that the questions and responses we have presented here can provide a starting point for professionals who are beginning to grapple with the meaning of inclusive school programs and with what is entailed in changing a school to become more inclusive.
