Now there is something to think about.... you have just created some major cognitive dissonance and it's going to be difficult to get that out of my head! :)
Parents may not want their children to fall in with the neighborhood kids if those kids are toting weapons, stealing cars, etc. Teachers might not want their kids included in classrooms where literacy instruction refers to excessive use of book tubs and word walls and absence of straight-ahead decoding instruction.
I think gaining opportunities to interact with peers without disabilities is a huge benefit of inclusion. It is hard to replicate those interactions in special education settings. If students don't have regular access to general education, like you said, teachers and parents must ensure that they are included in other ways. In practice, these opportunities are not always provided and opportunities to not only interact with peers but develop friendships are lost. For some students, inclusion in general education may not be appropriate, but opportunities to interact with peers should be available for all students.
Sure, but at what cost? If the general education classroom isn't appropriately serving students' academic and behavioral needs, is a wider range of friends an acceptable alternative?
Hi John, good point. In my opinion, the answer is found in the individual needs of the student. I think for some students, a wider range of friends is acceptable for students whose academic and behavioral needs are not being met in the general education classroom. That isn't to say that they should be included in general education, only that we need to find additional opportunities for social interaction and friendship development outside of special education classrooms.
Good questions.....I have always been concerned that many common general education practices (e.g., hand raising as primary means of assessing understanding, routine use of homework, "independent" seatwork) may actually be widening the achievement gap in our inclusion classes...... Interesting how it is so difficult to disseminated evidence-based practices, yet ineffective approaches seem to spread with ease.....
I taught a center-based program for 14 years and have now been teaching teachers for 5 years; I have always pounded the 'inclusion' drum (it was called 'mainstreaming' when I started). My goal: to remove the apprehension felt by general education staff and student peers. It took years to make that paradigm shift-- I found students easily welcomed 'my' students, it was the general education teachers that were apprehensive. I have never encountered a teacher that didn't want to include, support, and educate all children: however, they expressed a lack of skill sets around differentiation, adapted curriculum, co-teaching, etc. Many shared their training was centered around scripted curriculum that rarely offered flexibility, and they were uncertain what (if anything) could be changed without diminishing the proficiency criteria or expectations. The resulting compromise was a balance between activities and participation in both classrooms to ensure the content, materials, and instruction remained meaningful and purposeful. Some students remained in the general education classroom, some students participated in lecture and activities and came to the center-based class for assessments, while others completed all classwork in the center-based class. My point, based on my limited experience, is that inclusion can be successful if each student strengths and goals remain the focus, a strong sense of student accountability and equity between educators (not viewing special educators as a 'teaching assistant' in the classroom or 'extra' work), and a 'team' mindset that collaboratively partner in the best interest of ALL students, not what is 'easiest' for educators. In my humble opinion, there is a need for flexible inclusion that supports students in meeting academic and social goals, and not necessarily a dichotomy between general education and special education that adheres to only full inclusion, or only 'those kids over there'. My focus as higher-ed faculty is to prepare dual-licensure educators that have the skills to effectively deliver content using evidence-based instruction to all students, regardless of ability or classroom setting...I'm finding that the paradigm shift is a challenge- teacher candidates that are focused on general education don't always embrace differentiation, and candidates that are special education focused don't always embrace inclusionary and co-teaching models. The struggle is real. :D
Honestly, I have taught a number of students in my 34 years who needed more than "differentiation" within the general education setting. Yes, my students have always been part of general education classes and we have differentiated and accommodated for them in that setting, however when teaching the average to bright very dyslexic child, a highly structured and intensive approach delivered consistently within a very small group setting and across (sometimes) several years is needed to promote functional literacy for that child. This kind of intervention simply does not happen in a general education classroom, and is often not merely delivered over a comparatively short period of time in a reading lab (as seems to be the model these programs often operate on, assuming a 3 month, or so, period of intervention will jump start the learning to read process and then the child is returned to reading instruction in general education and all is well).
John, just wanted to affirm your point on inclusion with a personal experience.
As you know, in drafting PL 94-142, we described its goal as FAPE, (free, appropriate, public, education) for all children with disabilities. In defining that we called for education with children without disabilities, “WHEREVER APPROPRIATE.”
After leaving OSERS I wanted to be associated with a center where development was possible and became CEO of three related non-profit corporations providing preschool and K-12, school-aged education (tuition free- NY State supported),vocational rehabilitation and training, job placement, research and demonstration, and later Adult education.
The school was for children with severe physical disabiliites various etiologies. (I received a letter from a later OSERS administrator questioning my chosing a school such as that. It was a predictor of later non-substantive, PR only admin of OSERS.)
Instead I decided to investigate, speaking with parents, students, teachers, referring schools, etc. Then, with data, plan for the future.
A frequent report from students was they felt isolated in the public school they attended, left out of sports, games, after school trips to hang out at the Mall, student government, dances, etc.
They welcomed the opportunities the school provided.
Parents reported the same kind of experiences. They could arrange “Play dates” during the early years, but as the childen became mobile, going to the mall, games, etc. the physical limitations led to exclusion.
Observations in the school and reports from referring local teachers, affirmed the positive educational and social gains. In fact the percentage of HS graduations was higher than in many referring schools for all students.
We did provide some assurances. Only children and parents who chose to attend, not referred against their wishes, were accepted. We encouraged cross registration, for example to take advanced math, when desired. We established closer school to work programs, involving VOC. REHAB, job placement, etc.
While local programs have expanded, the school 40 years later, I retired 1994, is still succeeding and tracking outcomes.
Ed … I have always loved your perspective, having been so central to the history of special ed. I also really appreciate your acknowledgment of the parent influence on legislation etc. (And you still owe me a drink.) The focus on the social—that fell to me as a parent, rather than my son’s IEP team. Luckily we had a band of neighborhood kids who didn’t see a difference
For readers who are not up on their history of special education, this comment comes from one of the people who helped write 'the law.' Ed Martin can correct me on this, but he, Fred Weintraub, and Joe Ballard where among the most influential people in helping the US Congress pass 94-142 and were WAY important in writing the regulations that implemented it. Ed's wonderful book, "Breakthrough: Federal Special Education Legislation 1965-1981" should be on our reading lists.
[I earn nothing from this mention; I hope Ed does earn lots. Given his generoatity, iIf Ed got a penny for every chiild with a disabilitiy who benefitted from his contributions to special education, he would probably endow special education with $millions.
So much more to be said... but let's also be reminded that the outcome of responsible and well designed and delivered "inclusion" practice is to create a better world, providing opportunities for children (and by extension, their adult care providers) to share experiences, learn about each other in authentic ways and explore/practice/hone ways to contribute to community and society. Much more than just 'learning in school' (although that's a great place to start and to model attitudes and behaviors that could generalize to any and all settings).
Thanks Lorraine. On the Hill, i learned that parents/almost always mothers, made policies real and professionals had less impact. Later I found researchers put Members in a coma, unless they could bring in a real example or issue.
I used examples of demonstration projects in Member’s districts to encourage funding. Dan Flood, The Chairman of the Appropriations ($$$) committee asked me one day, “Dr. Martin, do you have and programs other than those in the districts of Members of this Committee?”
I responded in kind, “Not yet Mr. Chairman, but when you give us more money we are going to spread out.”
Our partnership with parents, and we encouraged school administrators to see parents as allies, was critical to the development of federal policy
Thank you. Apparently "full inclusion" is taught in graduate schools to would be teachers and sped administrators. So much so that our JHS and HS in my district do not offer any other option, to speak of. Our elementary students who go to 7th grade with 1st and 2nd grade reading levels (another story altogether) or math scores, always go into full inclusion general ed 7th and 8th grade classrooms with zero support aside from the sped teacher or paraprofessional who is placed in the classroom to accommodate them. The whole notion of the "I" in IEP is violated, as is the "A" in FAPE. Finally, the law requires the IEP team to make placement decisions based upon FAPE in the LRE, but only one option is allowed. More and more our elementary schools are moving toward this as well. In my career I have taught many severely dyslexic students (I mean those in the bottom first or second percentile). These students require very intensive instruction that is paced and sequenced carefully in order to (slowly) build a neural network for reading words. It can take daily intensive work in a small group over a period like 3 years to accomplish this to allow functional literacy in the most severely impaired. No matter how good the general ed reading instruction is (we do have a few good classroom teachers of reading), the general ed setting is not the place to engage in this lengthy, labor intensive process (which will pay off if allowed to happen). I am glad I am inching close to retirement.
Julie, thanks for the note. I agree with your points about the'i' in IEP and the 'a' in FAPE, and (especially) there only one being one option (inclusion, I presume) for many students. I also agree that it takes "daily intensive work in a small group over a period of [n] years" to help such learners to become fluent readers.
I'm hoping that we can join together to advocate for systematic, intensive, sustained, evidence-based instrution in reading.
I know several families that regret having their children "included" for their entire K-6 years. The idea was to allow the children to access the mainstream curriculum, but it would have been more accurate to say that the mainstream curriculum was delivered while these students were in the room, but that they had no real access to the curriculum because it was far beyond their ability to comprehend and grasp. Differentiation was not enough; these students needed a different approach, more time, and a different environment.
Your note illustrates at least three important points: (a) instruction in "mainstream" classrooms is rarely adapted to individual needs; (b) kids can often be in over their heads; (c) kids have individual needs related to modified instruction.
I certainly support placement in "the least restrictive environment," but sometimes the general education classroom is quite restrictive, as your comment illustrates. To me, the core idea of special education is that kids with disabilities get a free and appropriate education. The way to provide that is to prepare an IEP based on a student's unique individual needs ("UINs) or unique educatoinal needs ("UENs").
The more we speducators drift from the step-by-step process of (a) identifying a disability, (b) determing unique needs, (c) planning how to meet those needs, and (d) identifying where to meet those needs beneficially, we create problems for children and families.
Too often, we go from (a) to (d) and then to (b) and (c). "Oh, OK. She's LD. We have co-teaching at her grade level, so we'll meet her needs in the genral ed situation. Now, how can we meet her needs in a 3rd-grade inclusion room?"
Now there is something to think about.... you have just created some major cognitive dissonance and it's going to be difficult to get that out of my head! :)
Oh! Good! Yay for cognitive dissonance!
Parents may not want their children to fall in with the neighborhood kids if those kids are toting weapons, stealing cars, etc. Teachers might not want their kids included in classrooms where literacy instruction refers to excessive use of book tubs and word walls and absence of straight-ahead decoding instruction.
I think gaining opportunities to interact with peers without disabilities is a huge benefit of inclusion. It is hard to replicate those interactions in special education settings. If students don't have regular access to general education, like you said, teachers and parents must ensure that they are included in other ways. In practice, these opportunities are not always provided and opportunities to not only interact with peers but develop friendships are lost. For some students, inclusion in general education may not be appropriate, but opportunities to interact with peers should be available for all students.
Sure, but at what cost? If the general education classroom isn't appropriately serving students' academic and behavioral needs, is a wider range of friends an acceptable alternative?
Hi John, good point. In my opinion, the answer is found in the individual needs of the student. I think for some students, a wider range of friends is acceptable for students whose academic and behavioral needs are not being met in the general education classroom. That isn't to say that they should be included in general education, only that we need to find additional opportunities for social interaction and friendship development outside of special education classrooms.
Agreed!
Good questions.....I have always been concerned that many common general education practices (e.g., hand raising as primary means of assessing understanding, routine use of homework, "independent" seatwork) may actually be widening the achievement gap in our inclusion classes...... Interesting how it is so difficult to disseminated evidence-based practices, yet ineffective approaches seem to spread with ease.....
Well said, John. Let’s not forget that the second term in FAPE is APPROPRIATE.
I taught a center-based program for 14 years and have now been teaching teachers for 5 years; I have always pounded the 'inclusion' drum (it was called 'mainstreaming' when I started). My goal: to remove the apprehension felt by general education staff and student peers. It took years to make that paradigm shift-- I found students easily welcomed 'my' students, it was the general education teachers that were apprehensive. I have never encountered a teacher that didn't want to include, support, and educate all children: however, they expressed a lack of skill sets around differentiation, adapted curriculum, co-teaching, etc. Many shared their training was centered around scripted curriculum that rarely offered flexibility, and they were uncertain what (if anything) could be changed without diminishing the proficiency criteria or expectations. The resulting compromise was a balance between activities and participation in both classrooms to ensure the content, materials, and instruction remained meaningful and purposeful. Some students remained in the general education classroom, some students participated in lecture and activities and came to the center-based class for assessments, while others completed all classwork in the center-based class. My point, based on my limited experience, is that inclusion can be successful if each student strengths and goals remain the focus, a strong sense of student accountability and equity between educators (not viewing special educators as a 'teaching assistant' in the classroom or 'extra' work), and a 'team' mindset that collaboratively partner in the best interest of ALL students, not what is 'easiest' for educators. In my humble opinion, there is a need for flexible inclusion that supports students in meeting academic and social goals, and not necessarily a dichotomy between general education and special education that adheres to only full inclusion, or only 'those kids over there'. My focus as higher-ed faculty is to prepare dual-licensure educators that have the skills to effectively deliver content using evidence-based instruction to all students, regardless of ability or classroom setting...I'm finding that the paradigm shift is a challenge- teacher candidates that are focused on general education don't always embrace differentiation, and candidates that are special education focused don't always embrace inclusionary and co-teaching models. The struggle is real. :D
Honestly, I have taught a number of students in my 34 years who needed more than "differentiation" within the general education setting. Yes, my students have always been part of general education classes and we have differentiated and accommodated for them in that setting, however when teaching the average to bright very dyslexic child, a highly structured and intensive approach delivered consistently within a very small group setting and across (sometimes) several years is needed to promote functional literacy for that child. This kind of intervention simply does not happen in a general education classroom, and is often not merely delivered over a comparatively short period of time in a reading lab (as seems to be the model these programs often operate on, assuming a 3 month, or so, period of intervention will jump start the learning to read process and then the child is returned to reading instruction in general education and all is well).
John, just wanted to affirm your point on inclusion with a personal experience.
As you know, in drafting PL 94-142, we described its goal as FAPE, (free, appropriate, public, education) for all children with disabilities. In defining that we called for education with children without disabilities, “WHEREVER APPROPRIATE.”
After leaving OSERS I wanted to be associated with a center where development was possible and became CEO of three related non-profit corporations providing preschool and K-12, school-aged education (tuition free- NY State supported),vocational rehabilitation and training, job placement, research and demonstration, and later Adult education.
The school was for children with severe physical disabiliites various etiologies. (I received a letter from a later OSERS administrator questioning my chosing a school such as that. It was a predictor of later non-substantive, PR only admin of OSERS.)
Instead I decided to investigate, speaking with parents, students, teachers, referring schools, etc. Then, with data, plan for the future.
A frequent report from students was they felt isolated in the public school they attended, left out of sports, games, after school trips to hang out at the Mall, student government, dances, etc.
They welcomed the opportunities the school provided.
Parents reported the same kind of experiences. They could arrange “Play dates” during the early years, but as the childen became mobile, going to the mall, games, etc. the physical limitations led to exclusion.
Observations in the school and reports from referring local teachers, affirmed the positive educational and social gains. In fact the percentage of HS graduations was higher than in many referring schools for all students.
We did provide some assurances. Only children and parents who chose to attend, not referred against their wishes, were accepted. We encouraged cross registration, for example to take advanced math, when desired. We established closer school to work programs, involving VOC. REHAB, job placement, etc.
While local programs have expanded, the school 40 years later, I retired 1994, is still succeeding and tracking outcomes.
Ed … I have always loved your perspective, having been so central to the history of special ed. I also really appreciate your acknowledgment of the parent influence on legislation etc. (And you still owe me a drink.) The focus on the social—that fell to me as a parent, rather than my son’s IEP team. Luckily we had a band of neighborhood kids who didn’t see a difference
For readers who are not up on their history of special education, this comment comes from one of the people who helped write 'the law.' Ed Martin can correct me on this, but he, Fred Weintraub, and Joe Ballard where among the most influential people in helping the US Congress pass 94-142 and were WAY important in writing the regulations that implemented it. Ed's wonderful book, "Breakthrough: Federal Special Education Legislation 1965-1981" should be on our reading lists.
[I earn nothing from this mention; I hope Ed does earn lots. Given his generoatity, iIf Ed got a penny for every chiild with a disabilitiy who benefitted from his contributions to special education, he would probably endow special education with $millions.
He is, my friends, royalty/.
Thanks Mom.
So much more to be said... but let's also be reminded that the outcome of responsible and well designed and delivered "inclusion" practice is to create a better world, providing opportunities for children (and by extension, their adult care providers) to share experiences, learn about each other in authentic ways and explore/practice/hone ways to contribute to community and society. Much more than just 'learning in school' (although that's a great place to start and to model attitudes and behaviors that could generalize to any and all settings).
Thanks Lorraine. On the Hill, i learned that parents/almost always mothers, made policies real and professionals had less impact. Later I found researchers put Members in a coma, unless they could bring in a real example or issue.
I used examples of demonstration projects in Member’s districts to encourage funding. Dan Flood, The Chairman of the Appropriations ($$$) committee asked me one day, “Dr. Martin, do you have and programs other than those in the districts of Members of this Committee?”
I responded in kind, “Not yet Mr. Chairman, but when you give us more money we are going to spread out.”
Our partnership with parents, and we encouraged school administrators to see parents as allies, was critical to the development of federal policy
Thank you. Apparently "full inclusion" is taught in graduate schools to would be teachers and sped administrators. So much so that our JHS and HS in my district do not offer any other option, to speak of. Our elementary students who go to 7th grade with 1st and 2nd grade reading levels (another story altogether) or math scores, always go into full inclusion general ed 7th and 8th grade classrooms with zero support aside from the sped teacher or paraprofessional who is placed in the classroom to accommodate them. The whole notion of the "I" in IEP is violated, as is the "A" in FAPE. Finally, the law requires the IEP team to make placement decisions based upon FAPE in the LRE, but only one option is allowed. More and more our elementary schools are moving toward this as well. In my career I have taught many severely dyslexic students (I mean those in the bottom first or second percentile). These students require very intensive instruction that is paced and sequenced carefully in order to (slowly) build a neural network for reading words. It can take daily intensive work in a small group over a period like 3 years to accomplish this to allow functional literacy in the most severely impaired. No matter how good the general ed reading instruction is (we do have a few good classroom teachers of reading), the general ed setting is not the place to engage in this lengthy, labor intensive process (which will pay off if allowed to happen). I am glad I am inching close to retirement.
Julie, thanks for the note. I agree with your points about the'i' in IEP and the 'a' in FAPE, and (especially) there only one being one option (inclusion, I presume) for many students. I also agree that it takes "daily intensive work in a small group over a period of [n] years" to help such learners to become fluent readers.
I'm hoping that we can join together to advocate for systematic, intensive, sustained, evidence-based instrution in reading.
I know several families that regret having their children "included" for their entire K-6 years. The idea was to allow the children to access the mainstream curriculum, but it would have been more accurate to say that the mainstream curriculum was delivered while these students were in the room, but that they had no real access to the curriculum because it was far beyond their ability to comprehend and grasp. Differentiation was not enough; these students needed a different approach, more time, and a different environment.
Jane, thanks for the comment.
Your note illustrates at least three important points: (a) instruction in "mainstream" classrooms is rarely adapted to individual needs; (b) kids can often be in over their heads; (c) kids have individual needs related to modified instruction.
I certainly support placement in "the least restrictive environment," but sometimes the general education classroom is quite restrictive, as your comment illustrates. To me, the core idea of special education is that kids with disabilities get a free and appropriate education. The way to provide that is to prepare an IEP based on a student's unique individual needs ("UINs) or unique educatoinal needs ("UENs").
The more we speducators drift from the step-by-step process of (a) identifying a disability, (b) determing unique needs, (c) planning how to meet those needs, and (d) identifying where to meet those needs beneficially, we create problems for children and families.
Too often, we go from (a) to (d) and then to (b) and (c). "Oh, OK. She's LD. We have co-teaching at her grade level, so we'll meet her needs in the genral ed situation. Now, how can we meet her needs in a 3rd-grade inclusion room?"
Ugh...not an individualized education program.
So, I'm going to commit a sin...commenting on my own post.
28 April I dropped a reference to this post on a fascinating thread on reddit. If any of y'all are on that resource, take a look: https://www.reddit.com/r/specialed/comments/ubrrmw/can_we_normalize_that_sometimes_in_the_special/