Creating Inclusive School Creating Inclusive School Communities Bruce Uditsky, M.Ed. CEO, Alberta Association

  • View
    0

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Text of Creating Inclusive School Creating Inclusive School Communities Bruce Uditsky, M.Ed. CEO, Alberta...

  • Creating Inclusive

    School Communities

    Bruce Uditsky, M.Ed.

    CEO, Alberta Association for Community Living

    buditsky@aacl.org

    www.aacl.org

    There is only one child in the world and

    that child’s name is ALL children.

    Carl Sandburg

  • Creating Inclusive

    School Communities

  • Four themes

    !Building a supportive classroom community

    !Collaborative teaming

    !Providing access to the general education curriculum

    !Cultivating social supports

  • Qualities of the inclusive classroom ! Student is welcomed at school of choice

    ! Student is full member of a regular classroom and school community

    ! Student valued, contribution recognized

    ! Parents as partners

    ! Relationships facilitated

    ! Builds on strengths

    ! Regular curriculum is modified to degree necessary

    ! Instruction is adapted to degree necessary

    ! Appropriate support provided to teacher/classroom

  • Qualities of the inclusive classroom

    ! Appreciation and celebration of diversity in its many forms - cultural, ethnic, learning styles, etc.

    ! Diversity enriches us all

    ! Use of a variety of instructional strategies, including cooperative learning, small group instruction, experiential learning, multiple intelligences, etc.

    ! Lessons that allow for multi-level success for all students.

    ! Belief that all students can and will learn/succeed.

    ! Each student has a unique contribution to make; unique gifts and talents.

    ! Authentic assessment

    ! Student participates in all school activities

  • Creating Inclusive

    School Communities

  • Qualities of the inclusive classroom

    !Supports and resources delivered to the regular classroom

    !Learning results from the collaborative efforts of everyone working to ensure each student’s success.

    !Students at risk can overcome the risk for failure through involvement in a thoughtful and caring community of learners.

  • Creating Inclusive

    School Communities

    A few questions!

    What is the principle determining

    factor as to whether a student with

    intellectual disabilities will be

    included in a regular classroom.

    Why the controversy?

    Why choose inclusion?

  • Creating Inclusive

    School Communities

  • Creating Inclusive

    School Communities

    What are the roots of segregated

    education?

    What does the research say?

  • Creating Inclusive

    School Communities

  • Research from the 1960s

    ! “Students in the “ideal” special education class learned no

    more math and less reading than in a regular classroom”

    Goldstein, Moss, & Jordon, 1965

    ! “Students with mild intellectual disabilities made as much or

    more progress in regular grades as they do in special

    education” Dunn, 1968

  • Research Carlberg & Kavale (1980) meta-analysis of 50 studies

    ! Students with mild intellectual disabilities lost 13 percentile

    ranks when placed in special ed.

    ! Students with moderate intellectual disabilities lost 6

    percentile ranks when placed in special ed

    ! However, some benefits appeared to be present for students

    with learning disabilities and behavior disorders.

  • Research Wang, Anderson & Bram (1985) meta-analysis of 50 studies/

    3400 students

    !Significant advantage to students in regular setting.

    ! 100% inclusion worked better than part-time integration

    ! Special ed placements hurt rather than helped.

  • Research

    !Baker, Wang and Walberg, 1994 - Review of

    meta-analyses- “special needs students educated

    in regular classes do better academically and

    socially that comparable students in non-inclusive

    settings” p.34

    !Freeman and Alkin, 2000 - same conclusion

    reviewed 36 studies

  • Research

    ! No adverse affects - Hollowood, Salisbury, Rainforth &

    Palombaro, 1994; Sharpe, York and Knight, 1994

    ! Inclusion of students with severe disabilities enhanced

    self-esteem, achievement and attendance of all students

    (Cole & Meyer, 1991; Costello, 1991; Kelly, 1992:

    Strain, 1993: Staub & Peck, 1994)

    ! Research on placement as a function of race, ethnicity,

    SES - Scherer, 1992/93

  • Ability Groupings

    ! Grouping appears to be instructionally effective for some students, but the psychological drawbacks may outweigh any advantages. Slavin 1988, Educational Leadership

    ! Little or no benefits for ability grouping for high, average, or low achievers in 27 studies. Slavin, 1993, Elementary School Journal.

    ! Ability grouping is ineffective at best and harmful to many students. It inhibits development of interracial respect. Slavin 1993, Journal of Intergroup Relations.

    ! Heterogeneous and cooperative groups are more effective for learning (Johnson and Johnson, 2002; Oakes, 1985; Oakes & Lipton, 2003; Sapon-Shevin, 1994)

  • COST COMPARISONS

    !! Study of 14,000 students district wideStudy of 14,000 students district wide “Inclusive education costs 13% less than special education class placements” Halvorsen et al. , 1996

    !! Interview Study of 14 School DistrictsInterview Study of 14 School Districts“Inclusion has startup costs but is probably cost effective over time.” “inclusion appears to be less expensive” McLaughlin, M. J & Others 1994

    !! Study of 172 StudentsStudy of 172 Students “Inclusion saved 36.7% in final year” Salisbury & Chambers 1994

    !! Study of 2313 StudentsStudy of 2313 Students “Average cost is slightly [4%] less in the inclusion model” Roahrig, 1993

  • Academic Progress Study, April 2004 Cole,C.M, Waldron, N., & Majd, M. (2004). Academic progress of students across

    inclusive and traditional settings. Mental Retardation, 42, 136-144

    41.9%45.9%

    Reading Students with

    disabilities

    progressing as

    much as peers

    35.9%43.3%

    Math Students with disabilities progressing as much as peers

    Traditional

    Model

    272 students

    Inclusive

    Education

    334 students

    Achievement Scores 1 year pre/post

  • Academic Progress Study, April 2004 Cole,C.M, Waldron, N., & Majd, M. (2004). Academic progress of students across

    inclusive and traditional settings. Mental Retardation, 42, 136-144

    25.3%

    21.2%

    53.7%

    37.3%

    Reading Gain

    Students with

    disabilities

    Other Students

    24.0%

    29.9%

    38.4%

    57.7%

    Math Gain Students with disabilities Other Students

    Traditional

    Model

    272 students

    Inclusive

    Education

    334 students

    Achievement Scores 1 year pre/post

  • Academic Progress Study, April 2004 Cole,C.M, Waldron, N., & Majd, M. (2004). Academic progress of students across

    inclusive and traditional settings. Mental Retardation, 42, 136-144

    22.7%

    28.4%

    89.8%

    48.7%

    Reading Gain Intellectual Disabilities LD

    16.2%

    24.4%

    44.9%

    37.9%

    Math Gain Intellectual Disabilities LD

    Traditional

    Model

    272 students

    Inclusive

    Education

    334 students

    Achievement Scores 1 year pre/post

  • Academic Progress Study, April 2004 Cole,C.M, Waldron, N., & Majd, M. (2004). Academic progress of students across inclusive

    and traditional settings. Mental Retardation, 42, 136-144

    ! Rather than providing clear and convincing benefits,

    special placements were associated with worse learning

    outcomes for students with mild intellectual disabilities,

    students with specific learning disabilities, and students

    without disabilities.

  • General Conclusions

    ! There is no rational basis for special placements of students with disabilities

    ! Schools & Districts should not offer harmful options

    ! Research does not prove what is best for every individual student. It does show that overall special placements have harmed students with disabilities more than helped them.

    ! In fact, special classroom placements have never been consistently supported by research.

    ! Some special educational methods are supported by research, special classrooms are not.

  • Demonstrated Effective

    ! Mnemonic Strategies

    ! Reading Comprehension

    ! Behavior Modification

    ! Direct Instruction

    ! Early Intervention

    ! Peer Tutoring

    ! CAI-Computer

    None require special classroom placements!

    Kavale & Forness, 1999

  • ! Entirely a question of values

    ! The challenge to restructure schools is a moral as well as a cultural and professional challenge.

    ! Teaching is moral work

    ! Inclusive education is a moral issue

    ! Moral dialogue is often absent or negated

    ! Moral issues cannot be resolved by research, legislation

    or social policy

    ! Courts, governments, bureaucracies, union