Responses to Questions Teachers and Administrators Frequently Ask about Inclusive School Programs

Responses to Questions Teachers and Administrators Frequently Ask about Inclusive SchoolProgramsAuthor(s): James McLeskey and Nancy L. WaldronSource: The Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 78, No. 2 (Oct., 1996), pp. 150-156Published by: Phi Delta Kappa InternationalStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20405733 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 17:09

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Phi Delta Kappa International is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The PhiDelta Kappan.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 46.243.173.21 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:09:01 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=pdki

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20405733?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Responses to Questions Teachers and

Administrators Frequently Ask About

Inclusive School Programs

BY JAMES McLESKEY AND NANCY L. WALDRON

The questions and responses that Mr. McLeskey and

Ms. Waldron present here are intended to provide a starting point for professionals who are beginning to grapple with the meaning of inclusive school programs and with what is entailed in changing a school to make it more inclusive.

D _ URING THE past eight years, we have worked with numerous

school systems as they have de veloped and implemented in clusive school programs. We

have assisted school-based planning teams, presented workshops on a variety of topics related to inclusion, and conducted evalu

ations of inclusive programs. Through these activities, we have found that certain ques tions recur among teachers and adminis trators as they develop inclusive programs. In this article, we will present the ques

tions we hear most frequently, along with

our responses to them. * Do separate class placements "work"

for students with disabilities? During the past 30 years, numerous articles, literature reviews, and books have addressed the ef fectiveness of separate class placements for students with disabilities (most often

mild disabilities such as mild mental re

tardation and learning disabilities).' The primary question posed is: When compared to placement in general education class rooms, do separate class placements im prove the academic and social progress of

students with disabilities? Intuitively, it would seem that taking a student with a

disability out of a general education class

room, placing the student with a small and

homogeneous group of students in a less

distracting setting, reducing the teacher/ student ratio, and providing individualized instruction would be beneficial. However, in contrast to what one might expect, the vast majority of available research has failed to demonstrate the effectiveness of such programs.2

Probably the most obvious reason that

separate class programs have failed is that

these programs have not met the high stan

dards that have been set by those who have

described the ideal program.3 For exam

ple, it has proved very difficult to indi

vidualize or differentiate instruction for students in these separate class programs.4 Furthermore, the "curriculum" offered by special education often lacks coherence, consisting instead of disjointed activities that are used to develop basic literacy and

numeracy skills; it often does not focus on

higher-level cognitive skills; and it often lacks the richness of the general education curriculum.5 Finally, the curriculum offered in separate special education classes is

usually not coordinated with or suppor tive of the general education curriculum.6

Personal experiences with these pro grams provide some insight into why they do not work. Think for a moment about a

boy in the fourth grade who has a reading problem. This student is identified as hav ing a learning disability and is pulled out

of his general education classroom during morning language arts for small-group in struction in reading in a separate, special education classroom. Placed in this sep arate classroom at the same time are five other students from grades 4 to 6, all of whom are at different reading (and lan guage) levels.

First, this student is not receiving ad ditional instruction in language arts. Rath er, the special class instruction replaces instruction provided in the general educa tion classroom. Second, it is likely that the teacher in the special education class room will use materials and methods that differ significantly from those being used in the general education classroom. For example, the teacher in the general edu cation classroom may be using a whole language approach to instruction, while the teacher of students with disabilities uses a highly structured, skills-based ap proach. Third, why take a student with a

reading problem and put him with others who have the same type of problem? It seems likely that none of these students

will exhibit much enthusiasm for reading. Indeed, they may become quite frustrat ed when they are asked to read. Where in this setting are the good models for read ing - the students who attend well, enjoy reading, read for pleasure, and so forth? Some of the students in the special edu cation classroom will probably also ex hibit behavior problems because of their

JAMES McLESKEY is a professor in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, In diana University, Bloomington, where NANCY L. WALDRON is an assistant professor in the Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology.

150 PHI DELTA KAPPAN



frustration at not learning to read, while others will be inattentive and have diffi culty concentrating on the reading con tent at hand. These are the behaviors -

rather than good reading behaviors - that their peers are likely to learn from them.

There is also the likelihood that the in dividual needs of these students will vary significantly, according to their reading ability, language skills, willingness to par ticipate, and so forth. They will not con stitute a "homogeneous group." If the teach er of students with disabilities uses a skills based approach to reading instruction, as is most often the case, she may have stu dents on three, four, or even five different reading levels at once. How can a teacher provide individualized instruction for each of these students, as well as for the 20 or more other students she will teach during the school day? How can the teacher find time to consult with classroom teachers, learn about the curricula of general edu cation classrooms at three grade levels, and coordinate the curriculum of the spe cial class with the curricula of the gener al education classrooms? Often the time cannot be found.

A final question is, How can teachers Yj ie - - $ />f t _ t __in separate, special classrooms know how

much to expect of their students? Many of the teachers we interviewed shared with us the frustration they felt when they be gan to teach in inclusive programs and re alized that they had expected far too lit tle of the students they had taught in sepa rate special education classrooms.7 These teachers noted that they had lost perspec tive by always working with students with "problems" and did not have a realistic idea of what a typical general education student could and should achieve. Once the students with disabilities (and their teach

ers) were in general education classrooms, the teachers significantly increased their

expectations of them. With all these factors in mind, it should

become obvious why research has most 3, 42 4often failed to support the effectiveness

of separate class placements for students with disabilities. These disappointing re

-k F ., ^Xg X 'sults have occurred in spite of many years

l v 1 t _ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~of intensive effort on the part of profes | _ ' i -S^wk > >s: j_ ~~~~~~sionals to develop model programs and | @ t) >0; ; ; ? i > Z _ ~~~~~~~~~~~instructional materials for these settings.

l E -'X: ̂ 1> < > _ * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~So why does that lead to the conclu _ j i _ _ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~sion that inclusive programs will work?

It doesn't. Recent evidence reveals that effective inclusive school programs can be

Illustration by Jonathan Bou OCTOBER 1996 151



developed as classrooms and schools are restructured to better meet student needs.8

However, evidence also exists that some poor examples of inclusive school programs have been implemented, in which students with disabilities were returned to general education classrooms with little planning,

minimal changes in the classroom, and in sufficient support for the general educa tion teacher.9

As any teacher knows, students with disabilities are labeled and removed from the general education classroom because, after the best efforts of the classroom teach er, the needs of the student are not being

met. To return the student to the same class room, under the same circumstances (e.g., same level of teacher support), is irrespon sible and will not lead to a good instruc tional program for the student. Indeed, un less major changes occur in general edu

cation classrooms and schools, the likeli hood is strong that students with disabili ties who are placed back into these set tings will not receive significant benefits.

Consider, for example, the fourth-grad er with a learning disability who was men

tioned above. If that student's teacher has 27 other students in her fourth-grade class, believes that each of these students must master the fourth-grade curriculum, grades all students using the same criteria, and receives little or no direct classroom sup port from the special education teacher, then the student with a disability will prob ably become increasingly frustrated in this classroom, as will his teacher. On the oth er hand, if the teacher alters her curricu lum, instruction, and grading to better meet the student's needs and has support in the classroom from a teacher of students with disabilities, then the likelihood that the stu dent's needs will be met in the general edu cation classroom is greatly enhanced.

* Are you saying that the teacher should alter her entire approach just to meet the needs of one student? What about attend ing to the needs of typical students? No, the teacher should not alter her approach for one student. One of the criticisms of inclusion in many schools is that too much is being made of the needs of one small group of students. We agree with this state ment if inclusion benefits only students with disabilities. Rather, a primary goal of inclusion should be to allow teachers in general education classrooms to better

meet the needs of all students. This will most likely include not only students with

disabilities but also slow learners, students who are perceived to be at risk of school failure, students who learn the curricular

material quickly and become bored, stu dents with attentional problems, and so forth. Improved instruction, a curriculum that is more child-centered, collaboration

with other teachers to address student prob lems, and a range of other features of in clusive classrooms should allow this ob jective to be met.

Research evidence indicates that, in successful inclusion programs, the aca demic and social attainments of typical students are at least equal to, if not greater than, those of similar students who are in noninclusive settings.'0 Furthermore, in terviews we have conducted with teach ers in inclusive programs indicate that one of the greatest strengths of these programs is the benefits that accrue to students who are not eligible for special education ser

vices, especially students who have diffi culty in class but "fall through the cracks" of the eligibility system for special edu cation (e.g., a student who is behind in reading, but not far enough behind to be labeled with a learning disability)."I

* Should the goal of our program be

'fill inclusion"? Some educators have be gun to use the term "full inclusion" as a guiding theme or goal as they develop in clusive school programs. This concept im plies that the purpose of inclusion is to in clude all students for all of the school day in every school setting, preschool through high school. The movement for full inclu sion has been criticized for concentrating on the "place" in which students are ed ucated at the expense of their individual needs and the quality of the education they receive.'2 To some extent, we agree with this criticism. Moreover, we feel that full inclusion is not a reasonable guiding theme for the development and implementation of inclusive school programs.

We have found that a better guiding theme for developing inclusive school pro grams is the concept of normalization. Nor malization, simply stated, means that stu dents with disabilities will be given the opportunity to live their lives in a manner that is as typical or normal as possible.'3 This objective means that schools should prepare students with disabilities to live their lives as independently as possible, in as typical a setting as possible. Fur thermore, normalization suggests that the "rhythm of the school day" for students

with disabilities should be as similar as possible to what is experienced by typi cal students.14

An example of this principle in a school setting will help to clarify how it is ap plied. In an inclusive fourth-grade class room, a classroom teacher and a teacher of students with disabilities were teaming to teach mathematics. As the class was re viewing mathematics problems prior to a test, the teacher of students with disabili ties was going over the material with the class, while the classroom teacher was drift ing around the room to respond to ques tions and to keep students on task. At the end of the review session, the teacher of students with disabilities asked all the stu dents if they would like to have the test read to them. Approximately one-half of the students in the class (including students

with disabilities and students who were not thus labeled) raised their hands and subsequently left the classroom to have the test read, while the other students remained in the general education classroom to com plete the test.

Two factors stand out in this setting with regard to normalization. First, nei ther of the teachers was readily identifi able as the "special" teacher. They shared roles, so both of them worked with stu dents with difficulties as well as with typ ical students. Second, when the students

were asked if they wanted to have the test read, everyone was given the option of leaving the classroom, not just students

with disabilities. Thus, although some stu dents were "pulled out" of the classroom, the concept of normalization was not vio lated, and the "rhythm of the school day" for all students was similar.

- So who should be included and who should not? Students who benefit academ ically and socially from the education they receive in general education classrooms should be included in those settings. It has been our experience that, with changes (al beit substantial changes), the general edu cation classroom can meet the needs of the vast majority of students with disabil ities. However, some students will receive greater academic and social benefits from placement in settings other than the gen eral education classroom.

When determining who should be in cluded, it is important to consider the age of the student. There are times, such as in high school, when the community is a more appropriate setting for much of the school




day for a student with a disability. Learn ing to live and work in the "real world" is a more important and immediate goal for these students than is learning algebra or socializing with other students in an al gebra classroom.

We have found that the best method for resolving the issue of where an education ought to occur is to use normalization as a guiding theme and to ask questions such as: What setting will provide experiences that best prepare the student to live a life that is as typical and independent as pos sible? Can the needs of the student be suc cessfully met in a general education class room? Can intensive, short-term services in a separate setting be provided that will give the student skills to function better in a "real-world" setting such as a gener al education classroom?

* What about including students with severe behavior problems, especially those

who are extremely aggressive? In every setting where we have worked, there have been a few students for whom an appro priate, full-time educational program in the general education setting could not be developed. These students are most often labeled seriously emotionally handicapped and exhibit extremely aggressive behav iors. Placing these students in a general education classroom not only does not meet their needs, but it also seriously dis rupts the education of other students and contributes greatly to the stress of teaching.

Although we readily admit that some students must be removed from general education classroom settings, we also have some qualms about this removal. Think for a moment about an aggressive student

who is disruptive to others in a general ed ucation classroom and must be removed from this setting. This student is often placed in a separate class with other students who have histories of similar aggressive, dis ruptive, or maladaptive behaviors. We all know that students learn a great deal from one another. Where are the good models for appropriate behavior in such a setting?

The most obvious behaviors that students bring to share with others in a separate class of this sort are their maladaptive be haviors. Furthermore, because of the range of problem behaviors that are exhibited in this separate class setting, one of the ma jor goals of the teacher must be to keep students' behavior under control. While the students' behavior may indeed be controlled in this separate class, this approach may not lead to their learning to control their own behavior, or to deal with their anger, or to get along with peers and resolve con flicts. In short, separate classes are often a means of controlling students' behavior rather than of providing students with skills that will yield success in life.

With these thoughts in mind, it is im portant that we continue to attempt to in clude students with serious emotional hand icaps whenever and wherever possible, so

that they have opportunities to learn to get along with peers in a real-world setting. In addition, it is important that the sepa rate classroom be regarded as a tempo rary setting for these students, with an em phasis on preparing them to succeed in getting along with peers in typical school settings.

A second issue related to students with serious emotional handicaps is also wor thy of mention. We have worked in sev eral settings in which teams planning to

move toward inclusion have entertained the notion that all students labeled with serious emotional handicaps should be excluded from general education class rooms. On further reflection, these teams typically determine that students labeled

with emotional handicaps vary greatly. Some are aggressive, many are not. Some of these students need extraordinary lev els of support to keep them from harming themselves or others, while other students

with the same label are not dangerous. Furthermore, some of these students ben efit greatly from placement in a general education classroom, where they have op portunities for learning prosocial behav iors from typical peers who provide good role models, while others can successful ly interact with typical peers only on an infrequent basis and for short periods of time. Thus decisions about the inclusion of students with serious emotional hand icaps must be made on a student-by-stu dent basis.

- So pull-outs can occur within an in clusive setting? Yes. Pull-outs are appro priate and necessary in some instances. The criterion we use forjudging the appro priateness of pull-out programs is whether they meet the previously mentioned ob jective of normalization. That is, if pulling students out is part of the "rhythm of the school day" for all students in a school, then it can certainly be part of the rhythm of the day for students with disabilities. For example, some schools regroup all stu dents at one or more grade levels for read ing instruction. Under these circumstances, students at all ability levels move about for instruction and may move from one classroom to another. In other schools, teachers may regroup students for read ing instruction within a single classroom.

Under these circumstances, some students may need more intensive instruction for a short period of time to work on basic skills that are lacking or need further de

U !~~~~~~~

"Te oitis'tt see wh a iis is.

OCTOBER 1996 153



The person who is required to

change the most will be the most

resistant to change.

velopment. As was previously noted, students who

exhibit extremely aggressive behavior which makes it difficult, if not impossi ble, to continue instruction in the class room - may need to be pulled out. In some instances, these students require short-term services in a separate classroom setting. Still other students may benefit from being pulled out for a short time and going to a classroom or other setting in the school to "cool off' and regain control of their be havior.

* I've heard that most classroom teach ers oppose inclusion. What if teachers won't cooperate? There have been many studies that seem to reveal strong opposition to inclusion, especially on the part of class room teachers.'5 However, it is important to keep in mind that the teachers surveyed in these studies were not involved in de veloping or implementing inclusive school programs. That is, they were asked to spec ulate about hypothetical situations. In ef fect, these teachers were asked if they

would like to become involved in an ill defined program that would require them to teach the students with the most signif icant learning and behavior problems in their school. Such a program would be dif ficult to design and implement and would result in many frustrating, anxiety-pro voking changes in teachers' professional lives. Under such circumstances, it is quite

understandable that teachers would op pose "inclusion."

In contrast to these studies, others have explored teacher support for inclusion un der more reasonable circumstances. For example, in a study by Brenda Myles and Richard Simpson, elementary teachers were initially given a description of a student

with a mild learning, cognitive, or behav ioral disability. They were then asked to select a classroom modification that would

convince them to accept the student in their classrooms. Myles and Simpson found that about one-third of the respondents

were willing to accept the student with out any of the listed modifications. In ad dition, 54% of the teachers were willing to accept the student with teacher-chosen

modifications. Finally, the investigators found that 14% of the teachers would be unwilling to accept the students into their classes, even with modifications or sup port.16 Similar findings resulted when a comparable investigation was conducted with middle-level educators.'7

What these studies, along with our ex periences in schools, seem to reveal is that about two to three of every 10 teachers are supportive of inclusion, require very lit tle convincing that inclusion is appropri ate for students with disabilities, and will form the core group for initial program development. In addition, approximately five to six of every 10 teachers have reser vations about inclusion but will cooper ate if the program is a good one that is presented to them in a clear manner and if they are involved in decision making re garding the program. Finally, about one to two of every 10 teachers seem to op pose inclusion and often continue to op pose such programs even after they are

developed and implemented. * If that's the case, then why does it

seem that so many teachers oppose in clusion ? While our experiences and some research reveal that 80% to 90% of teach ers are supportive of inclusion, it is im portant to keep in mind that these num bers reflect teacher support for good in clusion programs, which are carefully de veloped and implemented. In contrast, many of those who are most strongly opposed to inclusion are teachers who have experi enced attempts to implement bad inclu sion programs. We have found that oppo sition to inclusion can approach 100% of teachers when the program is poorly im

plemented - that is, when teachers have little or no involvement in planning, when they are not supported in the general ed ucation classroom, or when inclusion is simply mandated. We have invariably found that a good index of the quality of an in clusion program is the level of teacher support. The vast majority of teachers are supportive of good inclusion programs,

while the vast majority of teachers are op posed to bad inclusion programs, as they should be.

* But don 't some teachers have a good point when they say that students with dis abilities cannot do the work they require in their classes? This is one of the most common questions we get regarding in clusion. This issue arose a few years ago during a panel discussion arranged by a local school district. A panel of teachers

was discussing inclusion before a group of parents, teachers, and administrators. One of the teachers on the panel stated that she could include some students with learning disabilities in her sixth-grade sci ence class if they could read the required material, understand all of the grade-level concepts, and pass tests related to this ma terial. However, no student labeled mild ly mentally handicapped could be includ ed in her class, since these students could not meet the aforementioned criteria.

This teacher was, of course, correct. As long as she held the belief that all stu dents must meet arbitrary criteria for suc cess in her classroom, students with mild

mental handicaps (and probably many stu dents with learning disabilities) could not be successfully included in her class. In deed, if they were "included" in this set ting, they would inevitably fail.

There is no doubt that if teachers be lieve that all students must achieve the same level of mastery of the same curric ular material at the same age, inclusive programs are destined to fail. By defini tion, students with disabilities cannot mas ter curriculum as do typical students, at least in their area of disability. For exam ple, a student with a reading problem is so labeled because that student cannot do

what other students can do in reading at a comparable age. This is not to say that this student cannot learn to read, or that he or she cannot learn curricular materi al by means other than reading. In addi tion, the student is likely to have strengths in other areas, such as mathematics or art.

Indeed, students with disabilities are of ten capable of learning many things that typical students learn, if adaptations are

made in how they are taught, how long they are given to learn curricular materi al, what they must learn, and how they are tested and graded.

The sixth-grade teacher's perspective seems to reflect a relatively widespread belief that students with disabilities should be returned to the general education class room only if their disabilities are "cured." If this belief prevails, most persons with




disabilities will never be included. Indeed, data indicate that academic difficulties are enduring, even for students with the mild est of disabilities, learning disabilities. Some research has indicated that the reading skills of many of these students tend to plateau at about the sixth-grade level.'8 This is not to say that these students are not capable of learning; indeed, many go on to achieve great success in life. However, adaptations are necessary if they are to be exposed suc cessfully to the rich curriculum of the gen eral education classroom.

* Are teachers of students with disabil ities the strongest supporters of inclusive

programs as they are being planned, de veloped, and implemented? On the con trary, we have found that, as a group, teach ers of students with disabilities are likely to be stronger opponents of inclusion than are classroom teachers. It is not difficult to understand why this is the case. While classroom teachers must make changes to accommodate students with disabilities, they are still able to maintain their own classrooms, curricula, and many other fa

miliar aspects of their teaching world. In contrast, teachers of students with disabil ities must make the greatest changes in their professional roles if inclusive pro grams are to succeed. These teachers must give up their classrooms, give up their sep arate curricula, negotiate roles with sev eral classroom teachers, face the possi bility that they will be relegated to the role of instructional assistants in the general education classroom, learn the curricula and classroom routines of other teachers, and make a variety of other changes. It is logical that the person who is required to change the most will be the most resistant to change.

These comments are not meant as a criticism of teachers of students with dis abilities. Any teacher or other profes sional would and should register concerns if such major changes were occurring in his or her professional life. In addition, many of the objections that these teach ers raise stem from a concern for the qual ity of education that will be provided to students with disabilities in settings that have, in the past, been less than accom modating to these students.

* So what is a good inclusion program? We use four criteria to judge inclusive pro grams. First, a good inclusion program is one in which students with disabilities make at least as much academic and so

cial progress as they would in a separate classroom. Second, good inclusion is re flected in academic and social progress for typical students - progress that is at least as great as these students would make in noninclusive classrooms. Third, good inclusion ensures that teachers are sup ported as they make the necessary class room adaptations to meet student needs and that they are actively involved in de termining the form of this support. This cri terion should be reflected in widespread teacher support for the inclusion program once it has been implemented. Finally, good inclusion programs reflect the con cept of normalization; that is, the rhythm of the day for students with disabilities is as similar as possible to the rhythm of the

day for typical students. * So what is a good model we can use

for inclusion? As Michael Fullan and Su san Stiegelbauer have pointed out, there are two perspectives on the issue of mod els and school change."9 One perspective holds that models that "work" have al ready been developed. Thus the goal of advocates of school reform is to convince those who will be making the changes to

adopt and implement these models faith fully. It is assumed that, once such a high ly prescribed model is in place, the needs of students will be appropriately addressed. If the needs of students are not being met under these circumstances, then the cause of the problem is assumed to be faulty im plementation of the model. Such an ap proach to reform seriously underestimates the complexity of schools, the differences that exist across school settings, and the desire for input and ownership on the part of teachers, administrators, and others in volved in school change. Moreover, we have found that such prescribed models, which are often brought into a local school system by outsiders who are unfamiliar

with and uninvolved in the local school setting, invariably face much resistance from teachers and administrators and of ten are not implemented faithfully.

In contrast to this perspective on school change is the view that change should be developed and implemented by profession als at the local school level and tailored to the individual needs of the school. What this means, then, is that decisions regard ing inclusive school programs should be school-based. Thus inclusive programs will differ from school to school, depending on the strengths and weaknesses of the

faculty members involved, the character istics of the student population, the re sources available in the school setting, the degree of administrative support for in clusion, and a plethora of other factors. This perspective respects the profession alism of teachers and administrators and assumes that they should be the key par ticipants in developing and implementing their schools' own inclusive programs.

We still need to address a final issue regarding the development of inclusive school programs. We have found that, be cause local schools are constantly chang ing, it is best to consider inclusive school programs as "works in progress." Thus, even after a program is developed and im plemented, it will need to be modified as

changes occur in the local school. Such changes might include an influx of a large number of students with disabilities at the

beginning of the school year, a decision on the part of teachers at the end of the first grading period that the program needs to be modified to better meet the academ ic or social needs of certain students, or the arrival of new teachers at the begin ning of the second year of the program's implementation.

* So there's no modelfor program de

velopment. Then how do we develop a

good inclusive program? It is not easy. One of the most difficult challenges that schools undertake is changing to accom

modate students with disabilities.20 Nu merous changes are required. Frustration and anxiety are great. But the benefits for teachers, administrators, parents, and -

most important - students are well worth it. It is our experience that there are three steps or stages in developing inclusive pro grams. These stages are not necessarily sequential; that is, one does not have to

master a step before moving on to the next. However, they are intimately interrelated and influence one another greatly.

The first stage is addressing teacher be liefs and values conceming inclusive school ing. We have found that the beliefs of many teachers about students, about how schools should be organized, and about the value of educating students with disabilities are critical factors that must be examined, re flected on, and changed if inclusion pro grams are to be effective. Is it worth it to go through all the anxiety of changing how teachers conduct their daily professional activities for a group of students with dis abilities? Are teachers willing to modify

OCTOBER 1996 155



curricula, instruction, and grading for stu dents with disabilities? Do teachers be lieve that students with disabilities should be "cured" before returning to the gener al education classroom? Should teachers have different expectations and standards for success for different students? Do teach ers understand the use of normalization as a guiding theme for inclusion? Topics such as these must be addressed as teachers be gin to develop an inclusive program for their school. We have found that the sin gle best method for dealing with many of these considerations is to have teachers visit a good inclusive school program, ob serve in classrooms, and discuss with teach ers in the host school the beliefs and val ues that guide their program.

The second stage in developing a good inclusion program is careful planning. It is our experience that such planning of ten takes a full year and entails extensive

meetings, discussions, staff development, visits to good inclusion sites, detailed anal ysis of the local school (e.g., resources avail able, attitudes of teachers, willingness of teachers to participate), and a variety of other activities on the part of school fac ulty members and administrators. Further more, program planning and development are caried out on a school-by-school basis.

As was previously noted, there are no mod els or other "shortcuts" for developing good inclusive school programs.

The third stage is the actual imple mentation and maintenance of the inclu sive program. This stage is the most dif ficult and results in the highest levels of frustration and anxiety for school person nel. The frustration and anxiety spring, in large part, from the many changes in role and function that are required of all teach ers who are involved in inclusive school programs. In addition, as the program is implemented, teachers quickly realize that changes will be ongoing as they modify the program to better meet the shifting needs of students and faculty members. Teach ers and administrators at this stage require continuing time for joint planning, wheth er with an entire team (e.g., a team of pri mary-level teachers) or with one other col league (e.g., a co-teacher). This planning time provides the opportunity for educa tors to continue to adapt their "work in progress"~ as they carefully plan changes and improvements.

Many more questions will certainly arise as teachers and administrators de

velop and implement inclusive school pro grams. Our hope is that the questions and responses we have presented here can pro vide a starting point for professionals who are beginning to grapple with the mean ing of inclusive school programs and with

what is entailed in changing a school to become more inclusive.

1. Edward T. Baker, Margaret Wang, and Herbert J.

Walberg, "The Effects of Inclusion on Learning," Educational Leadership, December 1994/January,

1995, pp. 33-35; Susan Epps and Gerald Tindal, "The Effectiveness of Differential Programming in

Serving Students with Mild Handicaps: Placement

Options and Instructional Programming," in Mar

garet C. Wang, Maynard C. Reynolds, and Herbert

J. Walberg, eds., Handbook of Special Education:

Research and Practice, Volume I: Learner Charac

teristics and Adaptive Education (Oxford: Perga mon Press, 1987), pp. 213-48; Herbert Goldstein, James Moss, and Laura Jordan, The Efficacy of Spe cial Class Training on the Development of Mental

ly Retarded Children (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Of

fice of Education, Cooperative Research Project No.

619, 1965); G. Orville Johnson, A Comparative

Study of the Personal and Social Adjustment of Men

tally Handicapped Children Placed in Special Classes with Mentally Handicapped Children Who

Remain in Regular Classes (Syracuse, N.Y.: Syra cuse University Press, 1961); and Nancy A. Madden

and Robert E. Slavin, "Mainstreaming Students with

Mild Handicaps: Academic and Social Outcomes," Review of Educational Research, vol. 53, 1983, pp. 519-69.

2. Baker, Wang, and Walberg, op. cit.; Epps and Tin

dal, op. cit.; and Madden and Slavin, op. cit.

3. Mariana C. Haynes and Joseph R. Jenkins, "Read

ing Instruction in Special Education Resource Rooms," American Educational Research Journal, vol. 23,1986,

pp. 161-90; Anne McGill-Franzen and Richard L.

Allington, "The Gridlock of Low Reading Achieve ment: Perspectives on Practice and Policy," Remedi

al and Special Education, vol. 12,1991, pp. 20-30; Marleen Pugach and Cynthia Warger, "Curriculum

Considerations," in John I. Goodlad and Thomas C.

Lovitt, eds., Integrating General and Special Edu

cation (New York: Macmillan, 1993), pp. 125-48;

Stephen W. Smith, "Individualized Education Pro

grams (IEPs) in Special Education ? From Intent

to Acquiescence," Exceptional Children, vol. 57,

1990, pp. 6-14; and Caren Wesson and Stanley L.

Deno, "An Analysis of Long-Term Instructional Plans

in Reading for Elementary Resource Room Stu

dents," Remedial and Special Education, January/Feb ruary 1989, pp. 21-28.

4. Haynes and Jenkins, op. cit.; Smith, op. cit.; and

Wesson and Deno, op. cit.

5. Pugach and Warger, op. cit.; and Smith, op. cit.

6. McGill-Franzen and Allington, op. cit.; and Pu

gach and Warger, op. cit.

7. Nancy L. Waldron, Evaluation Report: Elemen

tary Inclusion Programs for Students with Disabil

ities (1993-94) (Bloomington: Department of Coun

seling and Educational Psychology, Indiana Uni

versity, 1994).

8. James Q. Affleck et al., "Integrated Classroom

Versus Resource Model: Academic Viability and Ef

fectiveness," Exceptional Children, vol. 54, 1988,

pp. 339-48; Madhabi Banerji and Ronald A. Dailey, "A Study of the Effects of an Inclusion Model on

Students with Specific Learning Disabilities," Jour

nal of Learning Disabilities, vol. 28,1995, pp. 511

22; George G. Bear and Willis A. Proctor, "Impact of a Full-Time Integrated Program on the Achieve

ment of Nonhandicapped and Mildly Handicapped Children," Exceptionality, vol. 1,1990, pp. 227-38;

Nancy L. Waldron, Evaluation Report (1990-91):

Integrating Students with Disabilities in the Least

Restrictive Environment (Bloomington: Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology, Indiana

University, 1991); and Naomi Zigmond et al., "Spe cial Education in Restructured Schools: Findings from Three Multi-Year Studies," Phi Delta Kappan,

March 1995, p. 539.

9. Lawrence Baines and Colleen Baines with Carol

Masterson, "Mainstreaming: One School's Reality," Phi Delta Kappan, September 1994, pp. 39-40,57

64; and Albert Shanker, "Full Inclusion Is Neither

Free nor Appropriate," Educational Leadership, De

cember 1994/January 1995, pp. 18-21.

10. Bear and Proctor, op. cit.; and Nancy L. Waldron, Evaluation Report (1991-92): Integrating Students

with Disabilities in the Least Restrictive Environ ment (Bloomington: Department of Counseling and

Educational Psychology, Indiana University, 1992). 11. Waldron, Evaluation Report (1993-94). 12. Douglas Fuchs and Lynn S. Fuchs, "Inclusive

Schools Movement and the Radicalization of Spe cial Education Reform," Exceptional Children, vol.

60, 1994, pp. 294-309.

13. Douglas Biklen, Achieving the Complete School:

Strategies for Effective Mainstreaming (New York:

Teachers College Press, 1985); and Robert B. Kugel and Wolf Wolfensberger, Changing Patterns in Resi

dential Services for the Mentally Retarded (Wash

ington, D.C.: President's Committee on Mental Re

tardation, 1969).

14. Stuart E. Schwartz, Exceptional People: A

Guide for Understanding (New York: McGraw-Hill,

1991). 15. Robert D. Coates, "The Regular Education Ini

tiative and Opinions of Regular Classroom Teach

ers," Journal of Learning Disabilities, vol. 22,1989,

pp. 532-36; and Melvyn I. Semmel et al., "Teacher

Perceptions of the Regular Education Initiative,"

Exceptional Children, vol. 56, 1991, pp. 9-24.

16. BrendaS. Myles and Richard L. Simpson, "Reg ular Educators' Modification Preferences for Main

streaming Mildly Handicapped Students," Journal

of Special Education, vol. 22, 1989, pp. 479-91.

17. Pamela Pruitt, James McLeskey, Barbara Wil

cox, and Tom Brush, Including Students with Mild

Disabilities: Modification Preferences of Middle

Level Educators (Bloomington: Department of Cur

riculum and Instruction, Indiana University, 1995). 18. William Bender, Learning Disabilities: Char

acteristics, Identification, and Teaching Strategies (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1992); and Donald D.

Deshler, Jean Schumaker, and Keith Lenz, "Aca

demic and Cognitive Interventions for LD Adoles

cents: Part I," Journal of Learning Disabilities, vol.

17, 1984, pp. 108-17.

19. Michael G. Fullan and Susan Stiegelbauer, The

New Meaning of Educational Change (New York:

Teachers College Press, 1991). 20. Ibid.; and Seymour B. Sarason, The Predictable

Failure of Educational Reform (San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass, 1990). K




Documents

Responses to Questions Teachers and Administrators Frequently Ask about Inclusive School Programs