Inclusion & General Education

1. Inclusion & General Education Kristie, Kim, Sharyn, Lauren, and Helene

2. Outline • Definitions of inclusion and supported inclusion • Full Inclusion Movement (FIM) • The inclusion controversy • Prerequisite skills • Benefits of inclusion • Potential sites and programs • Strategies for teaching children in the inclusion setting • Strategies for support staff • Evaluation of the inclusion placement • Conclusion

3. What is Inclusion? (Bondy, 1996) • The definition of inclusion is when students with special needs are placed in public school systems with typical peers and all services are provided within the regular classroom. • According to Bondy, “inclusion involves bringing the support services to the child (rather than moving the child to the services) and requires only that the child will benefit from being in the class (rather than having to keep up with the other students).”

4. What is Supported Inclusion? • The federal law states that all children are entitled to a free and appropriate education. • The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) includes a mandate that all services should be provided in the “least restrictive environment.” • “Supported inclusion is defined as the act of sending a student with autism or Pervasive Development Disorders (PDD) into a regular education accompanied by an aide or instructor trained in the principles of Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA)” (Johnson, Meyer, Taylor, 1996) .

5. Who Considers Supported Inclusion?(Johnson et al. 1996) • Parents, behavioral consultants, educational consultants, and the school administration are responsible deciding if supported inclusion is appropriate for the child or not. • Dymond (2001) reviewed the literature on inclusive school program evaluations and proposed a model that includes stakeholders in the evaluation process though a participatory action research approach, analyzes both program processes and outcomes, uses multiple methods and measures, and obtains perceptions from diverse stakeholder groups.

6. (Dymond, 2001)

7. Why Consider Supported Inclusion?(Johnson et al. 1996) The following considerations should be carefully evaluated: • Can the child generalize social skills? • Can the child learn new social skills in an inclusion setting? • Can the child generalize academic skills from one setting to the next? • Can the child learn new academic skills? • Can the student’s time in the regular education setting gradually and systematically increase to prepare for a full transition? It is important to include young children with autism and other disabilities into regular education classes because benefits occur when children are included with peers, socialize with them, and actively engage in typical preschool activities including play (Harris & Handleman, 1997; Kellegrew, 1995; Koegel, Koegel, Harrower, & Carter, 1999; McGee, Morrimer, & Daly, 2001; McWilliam, Trivette, & Dunst, 1985; Rogers, Hall, Osaki, Reaven, & Herbison, 2001; Strain, 1983).

8. What is Full Inclusion? (Bondy, 1996) • The term full inclusion is the idea that all students with special needs must be placed with age appropriate peers. • Services must be provided within the regular classroom setting.

9. FIM: • Qualifies as Quackery and Fraud (Worrall,1990) • FIM meets the criterion for Quackery and Fraud • Lack of evidence suggesting FIM to be true/goes against common sense • Not consistent with evidence of effective treatments for children with disabilities. FIM ‘s idea of justification of effective treatment leads to 2 unsatisfactory possibilities • Pseudoscientific treatments may influence public into using an ineffective treatment solely on the basis of location. • General education settings would be better learning environments for a child with a disability then a learning environment that provided evidence based interventions by specially trained teaching staff.

10. The Controversy

11. The Delusion of Inclusion of the FIM • According to Mock & Kauffman (2004), these are the Delusions of Inclusion: • (a) students will receive the same learning opportunities because they are in the same environment. • (b) The only way to provide fair treatment to students with disabilities is to share a learning setting with typically peers. • (c) Students with disabilities should be treated exactly the same as students without disabilities. • The Full Inclusion Movement (FIM) states that it is the “place” that does or does not make instruction qualify as effective.

12. Legislators According to legislator’s special education services: • Are poor and costly (Cottle,2001; Fletcher,2001) Those against special education argue: • Children with disabilities should not be separated from typically developing children for self esteem purposes. • Claim that special educators are poorly trained. • Claim that the disabilities themselves are poorly defined. • Claim that goals and expectations for children with disabilities are not set to a high enough standard by special education teachers.

13. Advocates of Full Inclusion • Aim to increase self esteem with the method of full inclusion. • Do not want children with disabilities separated from the mainstream population. • Idea established in 1968 by Dunn, and the again in 1970 by Deno. (*Deno believed that children should not be separated from the mainstream class because it would be harmful for self-esteem). • Against research because of its emphasis on individualized treatments which again would “separate” children from the general education classroom. • Supporters of the FIM aim for social justice and on that premise they go on to say that the segregation of children with special needs from the general education classroom is similar to racial segregation.

14. Opponents of the FIM • State that interventions are difficult to implement in a general education setting (Kauffman, Lloyd, Baker, & Riedel,1995). • According to parental anecdotal reports: the general education setting may not be a successful learning environment and may actually result in an increase of maladaptive behaviors due to the unpredictability of reinforcement schedules and the environment in general (Crockett, & Kauffman,1999). • The effectiveness of teaching all the children in the class would be compromised because there will be higher demands placed on the teacher due to the special needs of the children with disabilities in the classroom (Palmer, 2001). • According to Krantz and McClannahan (1999), putting children in integrated classrooms is not effective. Adverse outcomes often occur (e.g. tantrums can affect the learning of other students).

15. FIM Outcomes • Supporters of the FIM cut costs at the expense of children with disabilities education • The FIM is based on Quakery and Fraud and does not support research. • Without specialized treatment, children with disabilities will be treated unfairly and will not receive optimal learning opportunities • The class as a whole (general education) will not receive optimal learning opportunities due to the heavy demands placed on the teacher and the ineffective plans for accomidating all children in the classroom.

16. Prerequisite skills children need to be considered for inclusion

17. (Johnson et al. 1996) The prerequisite skills 1.Language Skills -Follow two-step directions when presented to a group -Communicate needs and desires -Answer simple questions -Ask simple questions -Engages in simple exchanges of conversation -Recalls experiences

18. Prerequisite skills….(Johnson et al. 1996) 2. Social Skills -Takes turns during activities -Walks quietly -Answers simple questions -Participate in circle activities -Initiates play activities with peers with or without adult prompts -Imitates peer play 3. Academic Skills -Learns through observation of others -Waits quietly -Raises hand to seek adult assistance -Learns targeted objectives during group instruction -Completes grade-level academic curriculum

19. Prerequisite skills….(Johnson et al. 1996) 4. Behavior Skills -Responds to delayed contingencies(reinforcement is delivered to child following a period of time rather than immediately after the targeted behavior. -Exhibits disruptive behaviors at near-zero levels in all environments -Stereotypic behavior under stimulus control

20. Benefits from an inclusion placement setting (Johnson et al. 1996) Some questions to ask when considering an inclusion placement are: *What is the child’s functional level of performance? *How accurate and consistent does the performance have to be to produce positive outcomes for the child in various natural situations? *What level of performance is expected of typical children of the same age? *What is expected of most children in the inclusion setting you are considering? *Does the child should demonstrate the prerequisite skills with proficiency in various settings and across instructors, before inclusion placement begins. • Robertson et. al. 2003 foundvariability in teacher’s reports of their relationship with included students with autism, children’s level of behavior problems, degree of social inclusion, and the associations between these factors.

21. How do you identify potential inclusion sites? (Johnson et al. 1996) Team review of: • Community settings • Preschools • Kindergarten and primary classes • Inclusion coordinator and/or parent, observe each class for 1 hour Other considerations: • Age • Distance from home or specialized school • Teacher characteristics • Classroom schedule • Class size

22. Examples of programs with inclusion sites: • Douglas Developmental Disabilities Center (DDDC) • Alpine Learning Group (ALG) • Princeton Child Development Institute (PCDI)

23. The DDDC (Handelman, Harris, Arnold, Cohen, & Gordan, 2006) • Mainstreaming and inclusion are an important piece of the school program • Initially students are segregated and then given opportunities in the integrated setting. • Fundamental skills are taught initially and then these skills will generalize into the normal/community based setting • The transition process is systematic and well- • planned.

24. DDDC(Handelman et al. 2006) • The process evaluates staff: student ratio, contingencies, school / life activities, classroom structure, and classroom visits are done to check for appropriate placement • The DDDC works with the local school district and parents to identify the best integration setting for the leaner • This process of integration begins one year prior to any placement changes

25. DDDC(Handelman et al. 2006) • Additionally, the DDDC staff looks at what requisite skills are needed for the new setting • After transitioning occurs in the inclusion setting, the DDDC will have increased visits to the student’s new placement • Cooperative planning will take place between the DDDC and the staff at the new placement. • Follow-up services and parent preparation are available to make the transition process smooth as possible for the student

26. ALG(Meyer, Taylor, Cerino, Fisher, Moran, & Richard, 2006) • Students can interact with peers in an inclusion setting • Referrals into inclusion can be made by any team member and the decision is made collaboratively by the team. • Inclusion settings are located within a close range of ALG • Initially, most of the students day is at ALG • and part of their day is at the inclusion • setting

27. ALG(Meyer et al. 2006) • When a placement in found, training in ABA is offered to the staff members at the inclusion site • ALG conducts on-going supervision and provides feedback to the inclusion staff • ALG staff member goes with the student to the new setting until the student no longer needs support or someone is trained at the inclusion site.

28. ALG(Meyer et al. 2006) • Time in the inclusion setting increases when data shows improvement and objectives continue to be mastered • The ALG staff member implements interventions to promote independence and generalization skills in the inclusion setting • The district prioritizes skills according to curriculum standards • When full inclusion is made an on-going consultation and follow-up services are done at home, school, and in the community • Students can go to the ESY program to focus on • targeted skills at ALG

29. PCDI(McClannahan & Krantz, 2006) • Data is taken on the learner’s skills, and staff make arrangements for the learner to interact with their non-disabled peers. • These “play dates” are done with a staff member who goes initially. Once the student has appropriate social interactions, the staff member will gradually fade.

30. PCDI(McClannahan et al. 2006) • There are programs to help the students interact appropriately with family and within the community. • When readiness skills are met, a gradual transition is made from PCDI to the inclusion setting • Inclusion is relevant only if the student can interact appropriately with peers, imitate peers behaviors, and participate in non-verbal interactions.

31. PCDI(McClannahan et al. 2006)Is the student successful? • Is the child engaged with teacher directed activities? • Does the child follow individual/ group direction? • Does the child respond to a behavior contract, and teacher notes? • Does the child have inappropriate behaviors? If so how frequent?

32. Strategies for Teaching Students in the Inclusion Setting (Johnson et al. 1996) Support staff must be trained in ABA principles, such as data collection, time delay, prompt fading, and positive reinforcement procedureswhen working directly with students in the inclusion settings.

33. Recommended Strategies for Support Staff(Johnson et al. 1996) 1). Shadow student and systematically fade back as soon as possible. 2). Support a student to remain on task and behave appropriately. 3). The teacher’s instructions should never be repeated by the support staff. If needed, provide a gestural or physical prompt. 4). After classroom teacher gives a direction, prompt only after 15 seconds elapse. 5). Give subtle physical prompt from behind and fade as soon as possible. 6). Provide intermittent verbal and social reinforcement when appropriate. 7). All questions should be redirected to classroom teacher. 8). Promote social interaction as often as possible. 9). If a skill has been targeted for instruction, follow the written teaching procedure. 10.) Summarize data on target skills daily on graphs.

34. Evaluation of the Inclusion Site?(Johnson et al. 1996) Select objectives that can be measured. Collect baseline data on all programs prior to starting a teaching intervention Record data on the performances of a variety of typical peers on the same skills and to assess changes in behavior. Data on targeted objectives should be reviewed weekly to monitor progress toward goals. According to Craft, Alber, and Heward (1998), academic productivity is essential in the classroom because the ultimate purpose of training students to recruit teacher praise is to maintain and extend the targeted academic or social skill for what they are recruiting praise for.

35. Conclusions • It is important to include young children with autism and other disabilities into regular education classes because benefits occur when children are included with peers, socialize with them, and actively engage in typical preschool activities including play. • There continues to be a controversy if inclusion is beneficial to students with special needs. • Douglass, Alpine, and PCDI offer effective inclusion programs for children with autism. • With various supports (including a trained support staff), along with ABA techniques and strategies, a child’s success in the inclusion setting will be maximized.

36. References Bondy, A. (1996). What parents can expect from public school programs. In C. Maurice, G. Green, and S. C. Luce (Eds.), Behavioral interventions for young children with autism (pp. 323-330). Austin, TX: Pro-ed. Craft, M.A., Alber, S.R., & Heward, W.L. (1998). Teaching elementary students with developmental disabilities to recruit teacher attention in a general education classroom: effects on a teacher praise and academic productivity. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 399-415. Crockett, J.B., & Kauffman, J.M. (1999). Taking inclusion back to its roots. Educational Leadership, 56,. 74-77. Cotle, M (2000). Jeffords Kills Special ed. reform school. The New Rebubplic,14-15. Dymond, S. K. (2001). A participatory action research approach to evaluating inclusive school programs. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 16, 54-63. Deno, E. (1970). Special education as developmental capital. Exceptional Children, 37, 239-237 Dunn, L. (1968). Special education for the mildly retarded -- Is much of it justifiable? Exceptional Children, 34, 5-22. Fletcher,M.A (2001). Overhaul planned for special education. The Washington post, PA3. Green. (1996). Early behavioral intervention for autism: what does research tell us? In C. Maurice, G. Green, and S. Luce (Eds.), Behavioral intervention for young children with autism (pp. 15-28). Austin, TX: Pro-ed. Johnson, Susan C., Linda Meyer, and Bridget A. Taylor. "Supported Inclusion." Behavior Intervention for Young Children with Autism. Austin: Pro-Ed, 1996. 331-342. J. W. Jacobson, R. M. Foxx , & J. A. Mulick (2005) Controversial therapies for developmental disabilities: Fad, fashion, and science in professional practice(Eds.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kauffman,J.M, Lloyd,J.W, Baker,J. & Reidel, T.M (1995). Inclusion of all students with emotional or behavioral disorders? Let’s think again. Phi Delta Kappam, 76,542-546,

37. References Harris, S.L., & Handleman, J.S. (1997). Helping children with autism enter the mainstream. In F.R. Volkmar (Ed.), Handbook of autism and pervasive developmental disorders (2nd ed., pp. 665-675). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Handleman, J.S., Harris, S.L., Arnold, M.S., Cohen, M., & Gordon, R. (2006). The Douglass Development Disabilities Center. In J.S. Handleman & S.L. Harris (Eds.), School-age education programs for children with autism (pp93-94). Austin, TX: Pro-ed Kellegrew, D.H., (1995). Integrated school placements for children with disabilities. In L.K. Koe-gel (Ed.) Teaching children with autism: Strategies for initiating positive interaction and improving learning opportunities (pp. 127-146). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Krantz, Patricia J., and Lynn E. McClannahan. "Strategies for Integration: Building Repertoires That Support Transitions to Public Schools." Autism: Behavior Analytic Perspectives. Reno: Context P, 1999. 221-229. Koegel, L.K., Koegel, R., Harrower, J.K., & Carter, C.M. (1999). Pivotal response intervention I: Overview of Approach. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 24, 174-185. Maurice, C., Green, G., & Luce, S. C. (Eds.). (1996). Behavioral intervention for young children with autism. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. McClannahan, L.E. & Krantz, P.J. (2006) Behavior analysis and intervention for school-age children at the Princeton Child Development Institute. In J.S. Handleman & S.L. Harris (Eds.), School-age education programs for children with autism (pp151-152). Austin, TX: Pro-ed. McGee, G.G., Morrimer, M.J., & Daly, T. (2001). The Walden early childhood programs. In S.L. Harris (Ed.), Preschool education programs for children with autism (Vol. 2, pp. 157-188). Austin, TX: Pro-ed. McWilliam, R.A., Trivette, C.M., & Dunst, C.J. (1985). Behavior engagement as a measure of the efficacy of early intervention. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 5, 33-45. Meyer, L.S., Taylor, B.A., Cerino, K.E., Fisher, J.R., Moran, L. & Richard, E. (2006). Alpine Learning Group. In J.S. Handleman & S.L. Harris (Eds.), School-age education programs for children with autism (pp 35-36). Austin, TX: Pro-ed. Mock, D.R, Jakubecy,J.J&Kaufman,J.M (2002). Special Education: History. In Encyclopedia of Education (2nd ed. vol 61, pp 2278-2284). New York: Macmillan.

38. References Palmer, D. S., Fuller, K., Arora, T., & Nelson, M. (2001). Taking sides: Parent views on. inclusion for their children with severe disabilities. ExceptionalChildren, 67, 467-484. Rogers, S.J., Hall, T., Osaki, D., Reaven, J., & Her-bison, J. (2001). The Denver Model: A Comprehensive integrated education approach to young children with autism and their families. In S.L. Harris (Ed.), Preschool education programs for children with autism (pp. 95-134). Austin, TX: Pro-ed. Strain, P.S. (1983). Generalization of autistic children’s social behavior change: Effects of develop-mentally integrated and segregated settings. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 3, 23-34. Worall, R.S (1990. Detecting health fraud in the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 207-212.