Lindsay Archambault Carolyn Gould Jennifer Tinson

1. Responsible Inclusion Lindsay Archambault Carolyn Gould Jennifer Tinson

2. The Department of Education has not published a definition of inclusion nor is the wording used in IDEA. Unofficially it is the education of students with disabilities with their nondisabled peers, with special education supports and services being provided as necessary. The essential element of inclusion is shared responsibility on the part of all educators in the school for the student with disabilities. Inclusion provides accommodations designed to facilitate the participation of students with disabilities in all aspects of public education, including transportation, instruction, extracurricular activities and access to facilities. (Vaughn,et al 2007)  Definition:Inclusion

3. Least Restrictive Environment “Least restrictive environment” means that the student should have the opportunity to be educated with non-disabled peers to the greatest extent possible. If the nature of the disability prevents the student from finding success in a regular education room, the student should be moved to a more appropriate environment. According to IDEA schools are able to take intermediate steps where appropriate to be in compliance with least restrictive environment mandates. This can include: • Placing the child in regular education for some classes but not others • Mainstreaming the child for nonacademic courses only • Providing interaction with non-disabled students during times such as recess or lunch The “continuum of alternative placements” in the IDEA requires school districts to make available a range of placement options in order to meet individual student needs. Least restrictive environment takes into consideration the impact of the services for and student with the disability on the students in the class that are not disabled.

4. History • 1950's: Challenges to America's schools • 1960's: Increase in federal govt. involvement in education • NARC • term "learning disabilities" • nature vs nurture • criticism of special education classes • 1975:The U.S. Congress enacted the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. PL 94-142 •  All children with disabilities had access to public education. •  All children with disabilities have equal access to a free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment (LRE) • The rights of children and family are protected • Inconsistency in implementing the LRE over the next ten years.

5. History 1980's: Feasibility tests were developed to determine if the school districts were in compliance with mainstreaming requirement • Can the school satisfactorily provide aids and services? • Was the student mainstreamed to the maximum extent possible? • Definition of mainstreaming: moving students from special education classrooms to regular education classrooms only in situations where they are able to keep up with their typically developing peers without specially designed instruction or support.    (FSU Center for Prevention & Early Intervention Policy) •  or integrating students with disabilities into the general education classroom for part of the day, typically during non-academic periods, for social interaction.    (Gordon, 2006) IDEA 1997, 2004 • Free, appropriate education • Least restrictive environment • Provision of an individualized educational program • The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act does not require inclusion.A "continuum of placements" is available for students related to their IEP (classroom to residential settings)

6. Classroom Implications • Children's educational needs should take precedence over philosophical aspects of placement. • Responsible inclusion has the potential to move literally thousands of children with disabilities out of inappropriate facilities and services and into educational settings offering dignity and opportunities to truly learn. • Social interaction skills are not learned by imitation or by proximity to students who are not disabled.  Most of the students we placed in inclusive settings were social isolates.  • The needs of nondisabled children in the classroom must be taken into consideration.

7. What do parents want? Studys have shown that parents of children with severe disabilities are less likely to favor inclusion than parents of children with mild disabilities. These parents cite that regular ed classes would not benefit their children educationally, socially or emotionally. Some parents have observed their children being more comfortable around other children who share their disability. Some parents feel that inclusion is being imposed on their students by politicians who have no idea what it is like to be or have a child with a disability. Just like many other education initiatives, there is no one size fits all solution for educating children with disabilities.

8. Local districts that support inclusion https://www.ocps.net/cs/ese/support/LRE/Pages/default.aspx http://www.scps.k12.fl.us/esss/asd.cfm

9. Guidelines for responsible inclusion are that the student and family are considered first Teachers choose to participate in responsible inclusion classrooms Adequate resources are provided for responsible inclusion classrooms Models are developed and implemented at the school-based level A continuum of services is maintained The service delivery model is evaluated continuously, and ongoing professional development is provided.  Vaughn and Schumm have pointed out that several organizations representing parents and professionals who work with students with learning disabilities have issued position statements registering concern that inclusive school programs fail to provide services for students with learning disabilities that are appropriate. (Council for Learning Disabilities, 1993; Division for Learning Disabilities, 1993; Learning Disabilities Association, 1993; National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities, 1993 Pros for Responsible Inclusion

10. Shift from Access to Accountability Appropriate education vs appropriate level of inclusion The term ‘inclusion’ shrewdly offers itself as a remedy for the implied opposite-exclusion- and in so doing nimbly sidesteps many serious enduring empirical questions about the organization of schooling and its effectiveness for all children” (Gerber,1995, p.181). Integration of students with disabilities into the social and academic environment of a general education classroom may adversely highlight those students' differences and create a stigmatizing effect or perpetuate struggles with self esteem.(Gordon, 2006) Inclusion does not mean special education reform, it means special education elimination. Special educators as well as special education students would no longer be distinguished from the general education population by label or disability.

11. Arguments against full inclusion •  Leaders in the full inclusion movement have made a serious, but correctable, error. They use terms such as "...all means all...", and "...just do it!!...". • Their position is that we no longer must seriously consider the needs of each individual child when making a decision about educational placement. • Full inclusion supporters  believe that placement transcends needs. They have generalized successes with some students with disabilities to all students with all disabilities. • Full inclusion supporters  make no distinction between the educational needs of a child who is deaf, a child with cerebral palsy, a child who is learning disabled, or a child who is blind. It is as though the type of disability has no effect on educational needs and services. • Full inclusion supporters tell us that disability labels are only appropriate for medical reasons. They believe that all educational planning and delivery of service can ignore the type of disability and concentrate on needs. 

12. References Smith, T.E.C. & Dowdy, C.A. (1998). Educating young children with disabilities using responsible inclusion. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3614/is_199801/ai_n8783513/ Vaughn, S., Bos, C., & Schumm, J. (2007). Teaching Students Who Are Exceptional, Diverse,and at Risk in the General Education Classroom.Boston: Pearson Education. Inclusion.(n.d.) Council for Exceptional Children.Retrieved June 17, 2009, from http://www.cec.sped.org. What is inclusion?(2002). Florida State University Center for Prevention & Early Intervention Policy. Retrieved June 17, 2009, from http://www.cpeip.fsu.edu/resourceFiles/resourceFile_18.pdf Hatlen, Phil. (2002).Responsible Inclusion Belongs in an Array of Placement Options. http://www.tsbvi.edu/Education/inclusion.htm Harrington, Stuart. (1997). Full inclusion for students with learning disabilities: A review of the evidience. The School Community Journal. http://www.adi.org/journal/ss97/HarringtonSpring1997.pdf Gordon, S. (2006). Making sense of the inclusion debate under IDEA. Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal. http://ezproxy.lib.ucf.edu

13. References Cont'd Vaughn,J. (1995). Responsible inclusion for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities. http://ldx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/28/5/264 Axelrod, M.; Henry, D. and Mcleskey, J. (1999).Inclusion of students with learning disabilities: An examination of data from reports to congress. Exceptional Children. http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_Restrictive_Environment http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/lre.faqs.inclusion.htm Palmer, D.S, Fuller, K., Arora, T and Nelson, M. (2001). Taking sides: Parents views on inclusion for thier children with severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 67 (4) pp 467- 484. Cessna, K. and Skiba, R. (1996). Needs-based services: A responsible approach to inclusion.  Preventing School Failure.  http://ezproxy.lib.ucf.edu/login