Download
1 / 34
340 likes | 560 Vues
Week Six: Research and Inclusive Education. March 13, 2007 A-117: Implementing Inclusive Education Harvard Graduate School of Education Dr. Thomas Hehir. Research and Inclusive Education. Summary of Research Findings Concerning Integration and Regular Education Placement.
E N D
Week Six:Research and Inclusive Education March 13, 2007 A-117: Implementing Inclusive Education Harvard Graduate School of Education Dr. Thomas Hehir
Research and Inclusive Education Summary of Research Findings Concerning Integration and Regular Education Placement
Research and Inclusive Education • What’s happening? • Does inclusion work? • What should educators do?
Research and Inclusive Education Relationship between integration and outcomes is complex
Factors Associated with the likelihood a child will be integrated from NLTS 1 • Type of disability • Functional level • Family income • Region the child lives in
Outcomes associated with more time spent in general education from NLTS 1 • Employment • Post secondary education • Community adjustment
School factors associated with better outcomes from NLTS 1 • Avoid F’s • Access to higher level courses for some students • Access to vocational education • Encouraging group participation • Teacher training and support
Other important research findings (Holcutt, 1996) • No interventions have been identified that eliminate impact of disability • Some interventions have been shown to provide academic gains for some students with disabilities and some of those interventions are more appropriately done outside regular classrooms while some can be done within • Effective programs for students with disabilities cost money • The decisions made by IEP teams concerning both placements and interventions can have a lifelong impact
“ The positive nature of this relationship is particularly interesting, given how difficult some regular education courses were. Regular education courses exposed students to significant academic risk, yet the students who took more of them did better in adulthood—if they managed to graduate from high school. At the very least, these analyses suggest that regular education classes did not have lasting negative effects. Across a number of analyses of postschool outcomes, the message was the same: those who spent more time in regular education classes experienced better outcomes after high school. Before we can draw policy or educational implications from this finding, however, we need to understand more about why it occurred” (Hebbler, 1993, p. 6-13).
“Given the diversity of student needs, the variety of course options at the secondary level, and the range of transitional goals possible, P.L. 94-142’s vision of individualized planning seems as appropriate today as it was in 1975. We’ve learned, however, that being able to meet the needs of students with disabilities requires having real choices. A choice between failing in regular education and succeeding in special education isn’t much of a choice. We have looked at the first generation of students educated completely under P.L. 94-142 and have learned that access to regular education is associated with positive outcomes but that it also comes with a high price tag. Maybe it’s time to lower the price” (Hebbler, 1993, p. 6-13 – 6-14).
