Full Inclusion of the Severely Handicapped in the Regular Education Classroom

Full Inclusion of 1

Running Head: RESEARCH PROPOSAL REGARDING ANALYSIS OF DISABLED

Full Inclusion of the Severely Handicapped in the Regular Education Classroom

Abstract

Full inclusion of the severely handicapped in the regular classroom setting will be addressed in this local (El Paso) study. 50 regular education teachers at the high school level will be given a questionnaire based upon the effects of inclusion of severely handicapped students in regular education classrooms. The survey will be designed in order to address the rewards and difficulties to full inclusion. "Age- and grade-appropriate placement is the most controversial component of inclusion because it is based on ideals, values, and goals that are not congruent with the realities of today's classrooms. Proponents of full inclusion assume that the regular education classrooms can and will be able to accommodate all students with disabilities, even those with severe and multiple disabilities. They assume that such students can obtain educational and social benefits from that placement. Those who oppose full inclusion argue that, although methods of collaborative learning and group instruction are the preferred methods, the traditional classroom size and resources are often inadequate for the management and accommodation of many students with disabilities without producing adverse effects on the classroom as a whole (

Introduction

Inclusion -- the idea that all children, including those with disabilities, should and can learn in a regular classroom -- has taken firm root in many school systems, although the law does not specifically require it (www.educationworld.com/a_curr/curr034.shtml).

To oppose inclusion would seem to advocate exclusion. Yet, some observers maintain that full inclusion isn't always the best way to meet student needs. In this study, we will examine the educator’s point of view. 50 teachers will be given a questionnaire based upon the inclusion of severely handicapped students in regular education classrooms. The questionnaire will be formulated in order to address the advantages and disadvantages to full inclusion.

Statement of the Problem

The problem we addressed in this work was defined as a perceived lack of information about the issues surrounding inclusion (inclusive education) high school teachers. So we must ask ourselves if inclusion of all children with disabilities in regular classrooms seems to be the law of the land, is it the right thing for all students? The most important issue faced is how regular teachers handle the pressures or stresses of having to deal with regular and disabled students. Therefore, when studying inclusion we must carefully consider the effects that may be placed on students and teachers alike.

Review of Related Literature

Inclusion-- Inclusion is a term, which expresses commitment to educate each child, to the maximum extent appropriate, in the school and classroom he or she would otherwise attend. It involves bringing the support services to the child (rather than moving the child to the services) and requires only that the child will benefit from being in the class (rather than having to keep up with the other students). Proponents of inclusion generally favor newer forms of education service delivery (http://www.IDEAS.Wisconsin.edu/weac).

Full Inclusion-- Full inclusion means that all students, regardless of handicapping condition or severity, will be in a regular classroom/program full time. All services must be taken to the child in that setting. In addition to problems related to definition, thereshould also be an understanding that there often is a philosophical or conceptual distinction made between mainstreaming and inclusion. Those who support the idea of mainstreaming believe that a child with disabilities first belongs in the special education environment and that the child must earn his/her way into the regular education environment. In contrast, those who support inclusion believe that the child always should begin in the regular environment and be removed only when appropriate services cannot be provided in the regular classroom (http://www.IDEAS.Wisconsin.edu/weac).

There are many different views regarding full inclusion. Critics of full inclusion ask whether even students with the most severe disabilities benefit from placement in regular classrooms (www.educationworld.com/a_curr/curr034.shtml). Is it possible to create a mold or style of education that gives balance between both regular and disable students?

There are advocates on both sides of the issue. James Kauffman of the University of Virginia views inclusion as a policy driven by an unrealistic expectation that money will be saved. Furthermore, he argues that trying to force all students into the inclusion mold is just as coercive and discriminatory as trying to force all students into the mold of a special education class or residential institution ().

At the other end of the spectrum are those who believe that all students belong in the regular education classroom, and that "good" teachers are those who can meet the needs of all the students, regardless of what those needs may be. However, the question as to how good a teacher is irrelevant to those who oppose full inclusion. In the case, Poolaw vs. ParkerUnifiedSchool District (Federal District Court, Arizona, 1994), the court rules in favor of residential placement for a disabled student. The court found that the benefits of regular education placement were minimal and that the child's educational needs could be met appropriately only by the residential placement ().

While few educators oppose inclusion completely, some express reservations about how full inclusion works in the classroom. Albert Shanker, writing for the American Federation of Teachers in 1996 in "Where We Stand," asserted, "What full inclusionists don't see is that children with disabilities are individuals with differing needs; some benefit from inclusion and others do not. Full inclusionists fail to recognize that the medically fragile and severebehavioral disorder children are more likely to be harmed than helped when they are placed in regular classrooms where teachers do not have the highly specialized training to deal with their needs” (www.educationworld.com/a_curr/curr034.shtml).

According to Donald Crawford, full inclusion is a philosophical movement based upon the notion that all students, regardless of the level or type of disability, should be educated entirely in the same general education classrooms as their same-age peers. Advocates of a policy of full inclusion feel that special education classrooms constitute a form of segregation and that separate classrooms for special education students, like classrooms segregated by race, are inherently unequal. Crawford, in opposition, feels that full inclusion will eventually force general education classes into loosely organized, child-centered, discovery-oriented and ultimately ineffective practices of progressive education (

According to Ayres and Meyer (1992), teachers must be empowered and recognized as knowing their students and circumstances better than anyone else. Teachers must have ownership in any innovative programs or model implementation in order for change to occur and be successful. They both feel that innovative and effective staff development activities can be implemented to initiate successful school reform. These staff development activities can target teacher attitudes, classroom practices, and child outcomes(http://epaa.asu.edu/cgi-bin/htsearch).

Between the two extremes are large groups of educators and parents who are confused by the concept itself. They wonder whether inclusion is legally required and wonder what is best for children. They also question what it is that schools and school personnel must do to meet the needs of children with disabilities (www.educationworld.com/a_curr/curr034.shtml).

Statement of the Purpose

Presently, the issue of full inclusion continues to be a debate among many. However, our group would like to approach and gain knowledge from the educator’s perspective. Throughout this study, we hope to find out whether full inclusion is an aid or hindrance for both regular and disabled students alike. In, general we want to examine if the affects of full inclusion are a help or barrier for both student types.

Statement of Research Questions

At the current, full inclusion has been and continues to be a controversial concept in education because it relates to educational and social values, as well as to our sense of individual worth. However, a small amount research has been done on the subject. Many people give opinions based off experience but the amount of concrete evidence remains to be limited.

We have proposed the following questions to teachers in hopes of learning more about the affects on full inclusion in the regular classroom.

• Do regular education teachers feel that inclusion is appropriate for all students?
• Does full inclusion inhibit both regular and disabled student success in the regular education classroom?
• Do regular education teachers feel that full inclusion of severely handicapped students will have an effect on time management within the regular education classroom?

Statement of Hypothesis

Throughout this study we hope to find that full inclusion has a negative impact in the regular classroom.

Significance of Study

Although support for inclusion of children with disabilities in regular education gains momentum, research lags behind. John McDonnell stated “ Unfortunately we do not have research that has directly addressed this issue”( significance of this study would be to obtain the teacher’s point of view on the subject of full inclusion. There have not been any scientific studies to this date that we could find on this particular subject. We feel that full inclusion is important and relevant to the lives of educators therefore we would like their opinions and thoughts on the subject.

Definition of Major Variables

In order to alleviate confusion on both sides of the spectrum (advocates and opponents), we will examine inclusion education, the role of regular education teachers, and characteristics of severely handicapped students. Through the examination of these variables we hope to look at all the areas that are apart of the full inclusion process. We also hope to shed light on each aspect.

Inclusive education means disabled and non-disabled children and young people learning together in ordinary pre-school provision, schools, colleges and universities, with appropriate networks of support. Inclusion means enabling pupils to participate in the life and work of mainstream institutions to the best of their abilities, whatever their needs Generally, mainstreaming has been used to refer to the selective placement of special education students in one or more "regular" education classes. Proponents of mainstreaming generally assume that a student must "earn" his or her opportunity to be placed in regular classes by demonstrating an ability to "keep up" with the work assigned by the regular classroom teacher (http://www.IDEAS.Wisconsin.edu/weac).

The term regular education teacher means a person who, under state standards, is qualified to provide instruction to non-disabled children of the same age as the child with a disability. The regular education teacher must also be knowledgeable about age-relevant developmental activities or milestones. Regular education teacher of the childmeans a regular education teacher who is, or is anticipated to be, the child’s teacher and is knowledgeable about appropriate activities of typically developing peers, so the teacher is able to determine how the child’s disabilities affect the child’s participation (involvement and progress) in those appropriate activities

Typically, the primary responsibility of general education teachers is to use their skills to instruct students in curricula dictated by the school system. Typically, the primary responsibility of special education teachers is to provide instruction by adapting and developing materials to match the learning styles, strengths, and special needs of each of their students. In special education situations, individual learners' needs often dictate the curricula

According to the NationalInformationCenter for Children and Youth with Disabilities, people with severe disabilities are those who traditionally have been labeled as having severe or profound mental retardation. These people require ongoing extensive support in more than one major life activity in order to participate in integrated community settings and enjoy the quality of life available to people with fewer or no disabilities; they frequently have additional disabilities, including movement difficulties, sensory losses and behavior problems. The basis characteristics of a person who is considered severely handicapped or having multiple disabilities include limited speech or communication, difficulty in basic physical mobility, tendency to forget skills through disuse, trouble generalizing skills from one situation to another, and a need for support in major life activities such as domestic, leisure, community use, or vocational (http:/

Clearly, the process of transition to full inclusion would be especially difficult for teachers and regular education students because this is a huge gap in the way of teaching as well to those that are being taught. Thus, causing a negative impact in the regular education classroom as stated in our hypothesis. Obviously, barriers would exist during the integration process. One major barrier to the practice of inclusion is the reactive instead of proactive response of schools to students' special needs. Too often students are simply excluded, instead of school personnel working to overcome challenging behaviors. Another barrier hinges on the fact that some schools still do not make the environmental modifications that would increase access. A third and attitudinal barrier concerns general educators' lack of feeling responsible for educating students with disabilities http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v4n19.html.

Method

In order to obtain regular education teacher’s perspective on the issue of full inclusion we have developed a Liket scale survey. The scale will range from 1 “strongly agree” to 6 “strongly disagree” Through the responses on the survey, we hope to determine perspectives as to whether or not inclusion is helping or hurting both regular and disable students. SPSS software will be used to organize, summarize, and simplify the data that we receive from a frequency distribution table. The table will show each teachers individual score from the Likert scale.

Subjects

The subjects of this study will be 50 randomly selected regular education teachers within the local (El Paso) high schools, specifically we will target the El PasoIndependentSchool District. The teachers educate grade levels 9th through 12th. The study will consist of 25% male and 25% female teachers ranging from 1st year to veteran (15 years or more). Primarily due to the population within the El Paso area, the ethnicity of the participants are largely Hispanic but we will attempt to distribute to as many other ethnic groups (African Americans, Asians, and Caucasians). The Liket scale will be used because the survey is easily composed and usually easier for testing of validity (

Instruments

With the help of a regular education and a special education teacher we will develop statements and questions for the survey. The instrument will be designed to gain the viewpoint of full inclusion within the regular education classroom. The instrument used is the Liket scale. The Likert technique presents a set of attitude statements. The advantages of using the Likert scale are as followed: relatively quick to collect information, can be relatively easy simple to construct, can be collected from a large portion of a group, easy to use, and it gives participants a wide range of choices which may make them feel more comfortable (http://www.arches.uga.edu/~porterk/likertscale.html). Subjects are asked to express agreement or disagreement of a five-point scale. Each degree of agreement is given a numerical value from one to five. Thus a total numerical value can be calculated from all the responses(

We believe that the validity of the survey will be strongly established prior to the development and implementation of the study because we consulted and were advised by persons (regular and special education teachers) who would be considered experts in the field of inclusion education.

Materials

Group members will administer survey to teachers within the high school and the teacher will be required to complete the survey within 30 minutes after receiving. Teachers will be given the survey and a pencil in order to complete the study. Upon completion, group members will collect the survey and pencils to begin analysis on the responses.

Design

As stated previously, this study will consist of 50teachers within the El PasoIndependentSchool District. The teacher will be asked to volunteer to take the survey and will not be paid a fee. We will randomly select the teachers from a list of 100 and divide 25% male and 25% female in hopes of receiving variations in response to the subject of full inclusion within the regular classroom. We will administer a survey during the Spring Semester of 2005. We hope by obtaining this information at this time with this group to obtain information that is as accurate as possible.

Procedure

In the Spring of 2005 prior to the Spring Break holiday week, we will request a list of 100 teacher both male and female that have taught in regular education classrooms with full inclusion students presently and within the last two school years. Once we receive the list, we will use the Medusa General Random Sampling & Research Randomization Software in order to choose 50 participants ( After the 50 participants are chosen, we will send letters requesting each person’s partaking in addressing issues regarding full inclusion in the regular education classroom by completing a consent form and return in a self addressed stamped envelope within 10 days of receipt. Enclosed with the consent will be a list of dates and times in which the survey may be completed. Once the consent forms are returned, we will determine a place to administer the surveys within IrvinHigh School. Most likely the principal will assign us to the library or the auditorium according to the dates and times that are selected by each teacher. We will be available to meet with teachers individually and within small groups with no more than 5 people at a given meeting session. Once the times and places are determined, we plan to meet with the teachers and administer the surveys with pencils. Once the surveys are completed and reviewed we will use frequency distribution table in order to receive the individual score of each teacher. In order organize, simplify, and summarize, each score from the measurement scale will be placed in the SPSS software.