Upload
hakan
View
53
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Academic Achievement in Self-Contained vs. Inclusive Special Education Classrooms. Sara Signor Michael LeBlanc James McDougal State University of New York at Oswego. Inclusion. Definition: The integration of students with special educational needs into the regular education setting - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Academic Achievement in Self-Contained vs. Inclusive Special
Education Classrooms
Sara Signor
Michael LeBlanc
James McDougal
State University of New York at Oswego
Inclusion
Definition: The integration of students with special educational needs into the regular education setting
Current trends indicate a shift toward including students with disabilities in the regular education classroom with their non-disabled peers (Kavale & Forness, 2000; Sailor, 1991).
Inclusion McLeskey et al. (1999) concluded that while there
are discrepancies from state-to-state, there have been clear increases in the United States in the number of students with learning disabilities who are being educated in inclusive settings.
The increase in inclusive settings is consistent with legislation, such as IDEA, that calls for students to be educated in the Least Restrictive Environment.
The Inclusion Debate Within the last few decades, the shift toward more
inclusive educational settings has been partially driven by lawsuits and advocacy for persons with disabilities.
A primary argument in support of the inclusion of individuals with disabilities has been based on the premise that a segregated education is a violation of individual rights.
The Inclusion Debate Individuals w/ Disabilities Education Act (IDEA):
To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are nondisabled, and special classes, separate schooling or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.
The Inclusion Debate
While laws and court rulings have consistently supported the education of students within the least restrictive environment, there hasn’t always been agreement as to what exactly that environment would look like for each child.
There has been a great deal of debate regarding the benefits and drawbacks of inclusive, as well as, self-contained education programs.
The Inclusion Debate
Discrepancies between what the law states and what schools actually implement are likely influenced by research findings that are contradictory; particularly findings that concern placement outcomes for special needs students (Huber, Rosenfeld, & Fiorello, 2001).
Inclusion Research
A study performed in the Netherlands matched students in mainstream (inclusive) programs with their peers in segregated special education programs. The authors concluded that after four years, the students who were mainstreamed showed more academic progress than those who were in the special education setting (Peetsma et al, 2001).
Inclusion Research
Banerji and Dailey (1995) reported that students with specific learning disabilities educated within an inclusive model made some academic and affective gains at a pace comparable to that of their normally achieving peers. They also suggested that for students with specific learning disabilities, the use of an inclusive model was related to reduced feelings of stigma.
Inclusion Research
Factors that complicate the results of inclusion studies: lack of random assignment to groupsnot having an appropriate control group lack of knowledge concerning the precise roles of
placement versus teaching quality in determining outcomes
(Peetsma et al., 2001).
Purpose of the Study The purpose of conducting the present study was to
gain clarity concerning the effectiveness of inclusion, in regards to student achievement outcomes.
The primary focus of this study was to examine the academic achievement of students with disabilities who participate in inclusive programs as compared to the achievement of students who receive instruction in self-contained settings.
Hypothesis
It was hypothesized that students who are educated in an inclusive setting will achieve academically at the same, if not higher, rate when compared to students who are educated in a self-contained special education setting.
Methods This study consisted of a review of records from
an urban district in upstate New York. All subjects in 4th grade inclusion classrooms
selected Self-contained students born in 1990 & 1991 were
selected Subjects not in a self-contained or inclusive
education program for at least two years prior to the study were excluded
Methods Subjects who had serious documented behavior
problems were excluded from this study in order to avoid possible confounding variables related to student misbehavior.
The elimination of these students was determined by the presence of documentation of a previous superintendent hearing and/or a manifestation review (i.e., a meeting to determine whether a student’s misbehavior was connected to his or her disability).
Data Gathering
Data was collected through a review of: class lists cumulative foldersdatabases containing student scores on district and
state-wide assessments
Data Gathering Class lists were used to collect the following data
for both of the inclusion and self-contained groups:date of birth school of attendancegrade gender free-lunch/reduced status disability categoryethnicity
Data Gathering Individual Education Program (IEP) documents,
psychological evaluations, and social history reports were reviewed to obtain: intelligence test scores individually administered achievement test scores the date each student was determined as eligible for
special education services the dates during which each student participated in
either an inclusive or self-contained program
Instrumentation Intelligence test scores were used to control for
cognitive differences between groups.
The WISC-III (WISC-III; x=100, sd=15) was chosen because it was widely used within the Syracuse City School District. If a WISC-III had not been previously administered, scores were used from the administration of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, Fourth Edition (Stanford-Binet IV; x=100, sd=16).
InstrumentationScores on achievement measures were used to
determine academic achievement outcomes for both the inclusion and self-contained groups.
Performance on the English Language Arts (ELA) assessments were used as measures of achievement for participants in the study.
Instrumentation Data from individually administered achievement tests
was also collected for each student. When available, scores on the following achievement measures were used: WIAT; WIAT-II WJ-R; WJ-III The Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement The Wide Range Achievement Test, Third Edition The Test of Early Mathematics Ability, Second Edition
Descriptive Results
Mean SD NAge 11.42 .68 38
Self-containedIQ Full 76.19 13.08 37
Age 10.84 .73 31Inclusion
IQ Full 79.32 15.99 28Age 11.16 1.06 69
TotalIQ Full 77.54 14.37 65
Descriptive Results
PovertyFree/reduced lunch
Inclusion 87.1%
Self-contained 89.5%
GenderMale Female
Inclusion 64% 36%
Self-contained 47% 53%
Descriptive Results
White African-
AmericanOther
Self-contain
34% 50% 16%
Inclusion 35% 52% 13%
Total 35% 51% 14%
Descriptive Results
Average time in placement sample analysis (years)
Mean SD
Inclusive 3.78 1.79
Self-contained 3.15 2.09
ResultsIndividual Reading Achievement Testing
After controlling for IQ, inclusive classroom students performed better on reading achievement than students in self-contained classrooms (f1,57=7.9, p=0.007)
Reading Achievement
Classroom Mean Std. Error
Self-contained 65.35 1.93
Inclusion 73.61 2.20
Results Group Reading Achievement Testing
After controlling for IQ, inclusive classroom students did better on the ELA (group reading achievement measure) than students in self-contained classrooms (f1,53=12.38, p=0.001)
Reading Achievement
Classroom Mean SE
Self-contained 583.11 5.87
Inclusion 614.03 6.54
Results Math Achievement Testing
After controlling for IQ, inclusive classroom students did similarly on math achievement compared to students in self-contained classrooms (f1,57=.758, p=.39)
Math Achievement
Classroom Mean Std. Error
Self-contained 70.19 2.07
Inclusion 72.93 2.36
Discussion After controlling for IQ and severe behavior
problems, students in inclusive classrooms did better on individual measures of reading achievement
Students in inclusive classrooms did better on the ELA
No differences were found in math achievement between groups
Implications
Results of this study and previous inclusion studies appear to indicate that students who are educated in inclusive settings achieve at a rate that is comparable to, if not better than those who are educated in self-contained settings.
Implications Legislation, such as IDEA, calls for removal of
children with disabilities from the regular educational environment only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.
Current legislation implies that all options should be considered before a student is removed from the general education classroom.
Implications Legislation, along with research findings seems to
indicate that:1. Educating students with their nondisabled peers in
inclusive settings appears to be the most desirable placement choice.
2. An inclusive setting should be considered first, before removing a child with a disability from the regular education classroom.