 
Abstract:
Elementary
teachers (N=42) from a district implementing inclusive practice were
surveyed to determine: a) if the frequency of curricular modifications
made differ by type of student disability, b) if there is a difference
in the frequency of curricular modifications made for special and
typical students, and c) if a relationship exists between modifications
made for special needs students and for typical students. Results
indicate the frequency of teachers' curricular modifications does
not differ by type of disability; that they make significantly more
frequent modifications for special needs students; and that there
is a significant relationship between the frequency of modifications
made for special and for typical students. That is, teachers who are
making modifications for special needs students are also making modifications
for typical students. This research is unique because few inclusion
studies explore the actual classroom practices of teachers in inclusive
settings. Implications for future research and practice are given.
 Go
Back to Titles
As special education has grown since it's inception in 1975, it has
evolved into a second system complete with its own teachers, administrators,
credentialing process, programs, and budgets (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994).
Essays on the failure of special education began to proliferate almost
from its' inception (Zigmond et al., 1995). Many contend that the
current system is dysfunctional, ineffective, excessively costly,
and often segregates and stigmatizes students who could effectively
be served in traditional educational settings (Hocutt, Martin, &
McKinney, 1990).
In 1986, in order to correct the perceived deficiencies of special
education, the Assistant Secretary of Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services, Madeline Will, suggested a delivery approach that became
known as the Regular Education Initiative (REI), a major reorganization
of educational services that would emphasize the regular classroom
(Kubicek, 1994). This national movement provided an opportunity to
restructure the relationship between regular, special, remedial, and
compensatory education programs (Salend, 1994) and sought to include
all students in a unified system (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994; Jenkins,
Pious, & Jewell, 1990).
REI supporters tried to restructure the special and general education
relationship in a number of ways. The principle means of realizing
a merger was to seek waivers from state and federal rules and regulations,
thus granting school districts increased flexibility to use special
education resources in different and presumably more imaginative and
adaptive ways (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994).
The current programmatic thrust for the organization and delivery
of education to students with disabilities is toward what is increasingly
coming to be called "full inclusion" (Sailor, Gerry, &
Wilson, 1990). The term inclusion is used to refer to "the commitment
to educate each child, to the maximum extent appropriate, in the school
and classroom he/she would otherwise attend (Rogers, 1993, p. 1)."
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 (Rogers, 1993). Proponents of an inclusive
system of educating students believe that this change has the potential
to provide a more effective education for all students and a stronger
educational system (Friend & Cook, 1993; Pearman et al., 1992;
Salend, 1994).
As inclusion has proceeded, regular classroom teachers have begun
to address the very real problems of how to adapt group lessons, supplement
textbook presentations, modify homework and standardize grades to
accommodate students with disabilities (Smith, 1998). For the regular
teacher, this means additional meetings with special education personnel,
additional inservice sessions, additional planning, and more students.
While regular education teachers cannot be expected to remedy all
the academic limitations of students with disabilities or to redesign
their entire curriculum for one student, many modifications can be
made for these students. In order to accommodate students with disabilities,
regular classroom teachers can plan appropriate instructional programs,
modify existing curriculum materials, evaluate student progress, and
make use of special education personnel when needed (Lipsky &
Gartner, 1996, Smith 1998).
While there is a recent proliferation of text books designed to assist
teachers in implementation of inclusion programs (Blenk & Fine,
1995; Falvey, 1995; Stainback & Stainback, 1996; Wang, 1993; Wood,
1998), few studies have addressed the extent to which teachers are
implementing these adaptations for children with disabilities included
into the regular classroom. Two studies conducted on this topic in
the 1980's appeared to indicate that many regular education teachers
were not actively involved in addressing the needs of the mainstreamed
students.
One study (Ammer, 1984) examined teacher's level of participation
and preferred degree of participation in the special education planning,
programming, and placement process. Approximately 29% of the respondents
stated that they had no knowledge of special students in their class.
Nearly 85% of all educators surveyed indicated that they provided
almost no specific accommodations for the special students in their
classes. Of the accommodations made, two of the most frequently mentioned
were socially including the students and individualizing lessons or
materials.
In another study, Schultz (1982) surveyed a number of regular elementary
teachers regarding their concerns about educating children with disabilities
in the regular classroom. The results indicated that teachers felt
a lack of expertise in planning for individual differences as related
to curriculum and instruction and were confused as to their role and
responsibilities toward the child with the disability in their classroom.
However, to date, few studies have measured what regular education
teachers are actually doing with children in the present inclusion
programs, including how frequently they actually interact with them
and what adaptations have been made. One study conducted by Rainforth
(1992) found that teachers who have implemented inclusion models use
more creative approaches and are more flexible in their teaching.
However, additional information on the types of modifications and
accommodations is needed. As teachers will be the primary service
deliverers of whatever inclusion practices are adopted, we must have
information on adaptations they are willing to make if we are to anticipate
possible difficulties and prepare for successful inclusive practices
(Vaughn et al., 1994).
Further, while numerous authors have looked at the effects of mainstreaming
or inclusion on teachers attitudes (Green, 1983; Jamieson, 1984; Larrivee
& Cook, 1979), few studies deal specifically with how various
labels accorded children with disabilities affect regular education
teacher's willingness to make modifications and the frequency of modifications
made for children of differing abilities. A National Study of Inclusive
Education (1995) found that found that no single category lends itself
to the success of inclusion more than others. However, national practice
indicates that few schools are including students with severe disabilities
in the general classroom (Lipsky & Gartner, 1996). This suggests
that teachers may perceive students with severe disabilities as being
more difficult to include in their classroom.
Go
back to Titles
In
light of these issues, the present study investigated the following
research questions: a) Does the frequency of curricular modifications
that regular education teachers make in the classroom for included
students differ according to the type of disability of the students?
b) Is there a difference in the frequency of curricular modifications
made by regular education teachers for special and typical students
included in their classrooms? c) What is the relationship between
the frequency of curricular modifications made for special needs children
included in the regular classroom and the frequency of curricular
modifications made for typical children in the regular classroom?
Go
back to Titles
In order to ascertain what teachers are actually doing in their
classrooms to meet the inclusion needs of all of their students,
an informal study was conducted using elementary school teachers,
kindergarten to sixth grade, from one suburban school district that
had been implementing inclusion for five years. A survey research
method was used to examine the frequency of curricular modifications
made for regular and special needs students included in the classroom.
Description of the Sample Community
District Demographics
The data for this study were obtained from a sample of regular education
classroom teachers, working with students in grades kindergarten
through six, serving a single school district. Geographically, this
school district is located in a midwestern state; it serves a large
and diverse community. The community itself is considered cosmopolitan
with a mix of agricultural, professional, and industrial workers.
The socioeconomic status of the community is mostly middle to upper
middle class.
Fourteen buildings comprise the district. Ten of the 14 buildings
are elementary schools, two are junior high schools, one is a freshman
school, and the remaining one is a high school. Growth has characterized
the school district, with student enrollment increasing from 1,500
to 13,214 over the past 37 years. Average class size is 23 pupils
and their ethnic composition is 94.7% Caucasian and 5.3% minority.
Throughout the years, the district has achieved state and local
recognition for academics, fine arts, athletics, and other extracurricular
activities. Two elementary schools and the high school have been
recognized nationally as Blue Ribbon Schools of excellence. The
students have scored well overall on state and national standardized
tests.
Special Education Programs
This school district is also known for its' comprehensive special
education programs which currently serve over 950 students. An inclusion
pilot program was organized in 1989-90 and implementation began
during the 1991-92 school year and has continued until the present.
Categorical services are not provided in this district but, rather,
educational support services are provided based on individual need.
Such specification may often result in services in more than one
placement option for a given student. Placement options include:
a) indirect individual assistance; b) individual- or small-group
instruction (1-3 students per instructional period); c) team teaching
in regular classroom; and/or d) resource center involvement (maximum
of 8-16 students with or without disabilities).
Go
back to Titles
Procedure
The
director of special education for the district assisted in distribution
of the questionnaires. Packets with questionnaires were delivered
to the 10 elementary schools by their Local Educational Agency
(LEA) union representatives. Along with each questionnaire was
a letter addressed to the building administrators from the director
of special education which briefly explained the questionnaire
and requested their staff's participation. An additional letter
addressed to the participant was also included which explained
the purpose of the research and the questionnaire. The staff members
were then asked to complete and return their questionnaires. In
addition, several follow-up attempts were made at the district
level to increase the teacher response rate.
Instrument
The
questionnaire, adapted from the work of Dover (1994), was developed
by the researchers to survey the range of curricular options made
for students. The questionnaire contained 81 questions: questions
1-8 addressed demographics, 9-19 experience and training, 20-29
collaboration and planning, 30-81 specific modifications. There
were 25 different modifications listed on the questionnaire. Each
of the respondents rated the frequency of each modification for
typical and regular students separately. Beginning with question
20, the responses were made along a four point likert-type scale
ranging from Daily (As part of all lessons I teach) to Hardly
Ever (As part of no lessons I teach).
To control for possible response bias of self report data, (Sprinthall,
Schmutte, & Sirois, 1991), all subjects were informed that
there was no penalty or benefit resulting from their responses,
the responses were confidential and anonymous, and the respondents
were urged to be honest. Prior to distribution, the questionnaire
was piloted on a small group of regular education teachers working
in inclusive settings. They completed the questionnaire and made
comments and provided feedback. The majority of changes suggested
were incorporated.
The State Department of Education special education guidelines
define the terms used in the questionnaire: Severe Learning Disability
(SLD), Severe Behavior Handicapped (SBH), Developmentally Handicapped
(DH), Multiply Handicapped (MH)1 ( Ohio Department of Education,
1982). In this state, SLD and DH are generally referred to as
mild handicaps while SBH and MH are considered to be severe disabilities.
Go
back to Titles
Results
Respondents and their Experience
The subjects for this study came from seven of the ten
elementary schools in a suburban midwestern school district.
Repeated follow-ups with the director of special education resulted
in 42 responses to the questionnaire, a return rate of 19%.
Of the demographic information gathered on this sample - - gender
(95.2%female) and average years of teaching experience (11.4)
- - it appears that this group is representative of the elementary
teachers of this school district. Table 1 reports the number,
percentage, and grade level of the respondents. (See Table 1)
Surveying respondents' previous experience and training with
special needs people was an important focus of this questionnaire.
The results indicated that 66% of respondents had some experience
with special needs people outside of the classroom. With reference
to formal training concerning special needs students, 79% of
the teachers had some in-service training, 66% had some college
course work, 48% had some exposure through workshops, and 66%
had some other type of training. Regarding their previous experience
with an included special needs student in their classroom, 2%
of the teachers reported no experience, 12% had less than one
year of experience, 38% had one to three years of experience,
and 48% had at least four years of experience. Class size for
more than 95% of the teachers was reported as being greater
than 21 students. Over 88% of the respondents had one or more
special needs students included in their classroom this year.
The following represents the frequencies: 24% 1-2 students;
38% 3-4 students; 24% 5-6 students; 2% 7+ students. No districtwide
data was available on these dimensions so comparisons of the
sample with the district data could not be made.
Over the past two years, respondents reported they had experienced
the inclusion of the following types of students in their classrooms:
93% reported having students with mild disabilities (SLD &/or
DH), 39% percent reported having students with Severe Behavior
Handicaps (SBH), and 32% reported having students with Multiple
Handicaps (MH).
There were four questions on the questionnaire addressing collaboration.
When asked how often they planned lessons for special needs
students with a special education staff member, they indicated
the following: 41%, never do; 35% sometimes throughout the month;
3% daily. Forty-nine percent indicated that they do not teach
in the same room with a special educator. When asked how often
they were given instructionally relevant information on students
which assisted them in adapting and modifying classroom instruction,
41% indicated never, while 39% indicated that they sometime
during the month they were given relevant information. Of those
subjects who were given information, 95% indicated that the
information was provided to them by a special educator.
Seventy-five percent responded that students with special needs
are able to participate in regular class activities on a daily
or weekly basis because of appropriate supports. When asked
how often they took time to work individually with students,
the majority (76%) of teachers indicated that they worked either
daily or weekly with both special needs and regular students
(See Table 2). When asked how often they taught to their individual
student's learning styles, 50% said they did so daily for special
students and 45% said they did so daily for typical students.
When asked to rate the degree of success they felt in meeting
the instructional needs of the special needs students included
in their classrooms, no respondents perceived themselves to
be very unsuccessful, 10% perceived themselves to be pretty
unsuccessful, 69% perceived themselves to be somewhat successful,
and 21% perceived themselves to be very successful.
Curriculum Modifications for Special and Typical Students
It is notable that most teachers indicated that they create
and provide daily curriculum modifications in their classroom
for identified special needs students without assistance from
another professional. Table 2 presents the responses of the
teachers and their frequency of use of the 25 different modifications
for both special and typical students. Responses are categorized
as daily, weekly, monthly, or rarely for both special needs
and regular students. As the Table displays, over half of the
teachers are making most of the listed modifications for special
needs students. More than half of the teachers indicated that
either daily or frequently throughout the week they perform
the following: alter room arrangements, provide individualized
instruction and resources, accommodate to student learning styles,
record directions, change the length and difficulty level of
assignments, and give prompts for the special needs student.
When giving tests for the special needs child, they frequently
increase the test time, shorten the test, or give the items
orally. In the area of peer interaction, the majority of the
teachers indicated that they daily or several times a week use
the following strategies: peer tutoring, teach specific social
skills, provide social opportunities, use cooperative learning
groups, and provide special reinforcement for special students.
More than half of the teachers indicated that from several times
a month to several times a week they are able to make similar
curriculum accommodations in their class for typical students.
However, they reported hardly ever providing accommodations
to typical students in the areas of testing, modification of
assignments, and usage of special equipment. Data comparing
the frequency of curricular modifications made for special and
typical students for each item can be seen in Table 3.
Go
back to Titles
Analyses
The
following hypotheses were tested: a) Does the frequency of curricular
modifications that general education teachers make in the classroom
for included students differ according to the type of disability
of the students? b) Is there a difference in the frequency of
curricular modifications made by regular education teachers for
special and typical students included in their classrooms? c)
What is the relationship between the frequency of curricular modifications
made for typical children and the frequency of curricular modifications
made for special needs children included in the regular classroom?
To test the first hypothesis, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)
was done to see if the frequency of curricular modifications made
differ according to the disability of the students served in the
classroom. This hypothesis was tested using only the questions
on the questionnaire that specifically addressed modifications
made for special needs students. There was no significant difference
among the groups (F(2,31)=.32) mild disabilities (SLD or DH, M=1.13,
severe behavior handicapped (SBH) M=1.12, multiple handicapped
(MH) M=1.26). This indicates that there was no difference in the
frequency of modifications made for each different type of special
needs student.
To test the second hypothesis, a t-test was done to see if there
is a difference in the frequency of curriculum modifications made
by regular education teachers for special and typical students
included in their classrooms. Means and standard deviations of
the frequency of curricular modifications made by regular education
teachers for special and typical students included in their classrooms
were computed. The result indicated that there was a significant
difference in the frequency of curricular modifications made by
the teachers for the special needs students when compared to the
frequency of curricular modifications made for typical students
(t=6.47, df=41, p<.001).
To test the third hypothesis, a Pearson product moment correlation
was done to see if a relationship exists between the frequency
of curricular modifications made for special needs students and
the frequency of curricular modifications made for regular education
students. A significant correlation was found r (42) = .51, p
<.05) between the frequency of curricular modifications made
for the two different populations. There was a positive relationship
between the frequency of curricular modifications made for the
special and typical children.
Go
back to Titles
Discussion
Implications
The teachers who responded to the questionnaire, in general,
were experienced (averaging seven or more years of teaching
experience) and had experience with special needs children
inside as well as outside of their classroom. Over half of
the respondents had been given at least some training, inservice
or other, on inclusion. Most of the teachers (88%) had experience
in an inclusionary setting for one or more years. However,
this experience appears to be limited to persons with mild
handicaps (92%). Only one-third had worked with children who
had multiple handicaps and/or severe behavior handicaps. The
school district where this study was done had implemented
an inclusion program for several years at the time of this
study. From this information, it can be concluded that this
is not a group of novice teachers.
Possibly the most important and interesting finding concerns
the type of modifications and the frequency of their use by
these teachers. It appears that the teachers are teaching
to each individual student's learning style, whether special
or typical. With regard to their special needs students, these
teachers are providing significantly more frequent modifications
for these students. Of the 25 modifications listed, in most
cases, over 50% of the respondents are making that particular
modification in their classroom daily or a few times a week.
Modifications for testing were given more frequently for students
with special needs. Other modifications used more frequently
for special students included: moving the room arrangement,
individualizing instruction; changing the difficulty level
of the assignments, using a specialized curriculum, and providing
special equipment.
These findings are very encouraging as they indicate that,
in this district, teachers appear to be following the "spirit"
of the inclusion initiative. That is, these teachers appear
to be providing needed supports for the special needs students.
This is contrary to the somewhat dismal findings of the earlier
studies on mainstreaming (Ammer, 1984; Schultz, 1982).
Of further interest, is the finding that there is a positive
relationship between the frequency of the modifications teachers
make for students with special needs and the frequency they
make modifications for typical students. Some of the specific
modifications made for all students (both special and typical
students) were: providing resources (i.e., study guides, highlighted
text, outlines, using peer tutoring, structuring activities
to create opportunities for special interaction, using cooperative
learning groups, and providing behavioral intervention). These
are practices that are typically used in inclusive models
(Blenk & Fine, 1995; Lipsky & Gartner, 1997; Stainback
& Stainback, 1996).
This is a very encouraging outcome which may suggest that
inclusion is benefitting both typical and special children
as well as helping to improve teaching. The teacher who adapts
instruction and assignments to all children is assumed to
be a better teacher than one who teaches all children the
same. In addition, as more modifications are being made for
all children in the classroom, the number of special education
referrals may drop and the number of at-risk children who
often fall through the cracks is likely to also decrease,
making school a more successful place for all children. This
finding lends some empirical support for inclusionary practices.
However, caution is noted as this school district is known
for instructional excellence, therefore this finding may be
unique to this setting and not be generalizeable to other
settings.
While these teachers appear to be "doing the right thing"
with regard to inclusive practice, they appear to be getting
little support from their special education colleagues. It
appears that regular education teachers are not planning with
special education teachers on a regular basis in this district
nor are they team teaching. The data also indicated many of
the teachers have never been given instructionally relevant
information on inclusion and making curricular modifications.
Best practice indicates that for inclusion to be effective,
this form of collaboration should be taking place (Friend
& Cook, 1993; Lipsky & Gartner, 1996).
Although the district used for this study is known for excellence
and has been implementing inclusive practices for several
years, most of the respondents perceived themselves to be
only somewhat successful in meeting the instructional needs
of the student with special needs included in their classroom.
This again may be related to the apparent low level of support
from other professionals.
With regard to the frequency of modifications made for children
with different types of special needs, it appears that no
significant difference existed. This result is counterintuitive
to popular belief which assumes that teachers will have to
make more modifications to their teaching style and curriculum
when working with students who have severe disabilities. We
assume that teachers do not want to take children with complex
needs because having to make more modifications will demand
more time and effort on the part of the teacher, thus taking
time away from the other children in their class (Williams
& Algozzine, 1979; Moore & Fine, 1978; Wagner et al.,
1983).
This finding can be viewed in several ways. First, it can
be assumed that the teachers are currently making modifications
for individual children based on their needs and do not view
the severity of a child's disability as significantly effecting
the frequency of modifications they currently make. This conclusion
would be optimistic for children who have severe disabilities.
If their presence does not require significantly more modifications
than teachers may already be making, their inclusion in a
regular education setting may be more welcome. A second interpretation
may suggest that the teachers are not meeting the instructional
needs of this population by making appropriate modifications,
which is a distressing thought.
Limitations
There
are a number of obvious limitations which may influence the
generalizability of this research such as the small number
of subjects and the always present concern about socially
desirable responses with survey-type research. However, the
authors believe that the importance of this data, the lack
of previously reported data in this area, and the practical
information this research provides for current practitioners
override these limitations.
One limitation of this study is the number of subjects who
completed the questionnaire, 42. Small sample sizes automatically
raise the question of generalizeability. However, despite
this, the authors believe that the demographics collected
for the respondents are representative of the overall demographics
for elementary teachers in the district. It is believed that
there may be a number of reasons for this low response rate:
the timing of the questionnaire and its' likely lack of relevance
to some teachers. Each of these will be briefly discussed.
Regarding the timing of this study, this survey was distributed
in the Spring of the school year when revision of annual educational
plans (IEPs) are written for all students in the district.
This process requires numerous meetings and extensive planning
time from the teachers who work with special needs students.
This questionnaire represented optional time-consuming paperwork.
However, the authors believed this situation was unavoidable
as they wanted to capture this data after the teachers had
a full year of experience with their students.
In addition, judging from past research (Ammer, 1984), discussions
with district level personnel, and knowing the number of special
education students in the district, it is appropriate to state
that approximately 25% of the eligible respondents have not
had a special education student placed in their classroom.
It is likely that this questionnaire held little relevance
for this 25%. It is important to note that the respondent
sample was comprised of teachers (98%) having had some experience
with a special education students in their classroom, with
88% of respondents having some experience with special education
students during this school year.
A second limitation is one of all questionnaire research.
Social desirability may influence responses. Based on the
results of the questionnaire, we really do not know if the
teachers are doing what they said they are doing. However,
all teachers were urged to be honest, informed that there
was no possible benefit or penalty to their responses, and
that responses would be kept confidential and honest.
A broader study which includes more subjects across districts
as well as observations and/or interviews with teachers in
the classroom would verify this study's findings. While this
questionnaire was given to teachers who were experienced with
this model, another suggestion would be to follow the same
teachers over several years to determine if the frequency
of modifications used changes with experience.
Conclusions
In
summary, this study found that teachers, who had worked in a
school district with an inclusion model in place for several
years, were making on a regular basis many modifications for
students with special needs. The type of modifications made
has implications for teacher training and staff development.
Further, it was found that as teachers make modifications for
special needs students, they are also making modifications for
typical students. This research provides some additional empirical
support for inclusionary practices in a field where that information
is lacking. It is further one of the few studies to explore
the classroom practices which make inclusion effective.
Go
back to Titles
References
Ammer,
J.J. (1984). The mechanics of mainstreaming:
Considering the regular educators' perspective.
Remedial and Special Education, 5 (6), 15-20.
Blenk, K., & Fine, D.L. (1995). Making school
inclusion work: A guide to everyday practices.
Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Dover, W. (1994). The inclusion facilitator.
Manhattan, KS: The MASTER Teacher, Inc.
Falvey, (1995). Inclusive and heterogeneous
schooling: Assessment, curriculum, and instruction.
Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks.
Friend, M., & Cook, L. (1993). Inclusion.
Instructor, 103, 52-56.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (1994). Inclusive
schools movement and the radicalization of special
education reform. Exceptional Children, 60,
294-309.
Green, C.S. (1993 March). Attitudes of regular
teachers and administrators toward mainstreaming
(Inclusion). In C.J. Liberton (Ed). And Others.
A system of care for children's mental health:
Expanding the research base. (pp. 241-246) Annual
Research Conference Proceedings, Tampa, FL.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No ED 372
524).
Hocutt, A.M., Martin, E.W., & McKinney,
J. D. (1990). Historical and legal context of
mainstreaming. In J.W. Lloyd, N.N. Singh &
A.C. Repp (Eds.). The regular education initiative:
Alternative perspectives on concepts, issues
& models (pp. 17-28). Sycamore, IL. Sycamore
Publishing Co.
Jamieson, J.D. (1984). Attitudes of educators
toward the handicapped. In R.L. Jones (Ed).
Attitudes and attitude change in special education:
Theory and practice. (pp. 206-222). (Report
No. EC 170 495). ERIC Clearinghouse on Handicapped
and Gifted Children, Reston, VA. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service NO. ED 249 694).
Jenkins, J.R., Pious, C.G., & Jewell, M.
(1990 Apr.). Special education and the regular
education initiative: Basic assumptions. Exceptional
Children, 56, 479-91.
Kubicek, F.C. (1994). Special education reform
in light of select state and federal court decisions.
Journal of Special Education, 28, 27-42.
Larrivee, B., & Cook, L. (1979). Mainstreaming:
A study of the variables affecting teacher attitude.
The Journal of Special Education, 13, 315-324.
Lipsky, D. K. & Gartner, A. (1996). Inclusion,
school restructuring, and remaking of American
society. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 762-796.
Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1997). Inclusion
and school reform: Transforming America's classrooms.
Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks.
Moore, J., & Fine, M.J. (1978). Regular
and special class teachers' perceptions of normal
and exceptional children and their attitudes
toward mainstreaming. Psychology in the Schools,
15, 253-259.
Ohio Department of Education (1982). Rules for
the education of handicapped Children. Columbus,
OH: Author.
Pearman, E.L., Barnhart, M.W., Huang, A.M.,
& Mellblom, C. (1992). Educating all students
in school: Attitudes and beliefs about inclusion.
Educating and Training in Mental Retardation,
27 (2), 176-82.
Rainforth, B. (1992). The effects of full inclusion
on regular education teachers: Final Report.
San Francisco,California
Research Institute, San Francisco State University.
Rogers, J. (1993). The inclusion revolution.
Phi-Delta-Kappa-Research Bulletin, 11, 1-6.
Sailor, W., Gerry, M., & Wilson, W.C. (1990).
Policy implications of emergent full inclusion
models for the education of students with severe
disabilities (Report No. EC 302 673). San Francisco
State University, CA. California Research Institute.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 365
048).
Salend, S.J. (1994). Effective mainstreaming:
Creating inclusive classrooms. New York: Macmillan
Publishing Co.
Schloss, P.J. (1992). Mainstreaming revisited.
Elementary School Journal, 92 (3), 233-44.
Schultz, L.R. (1982). Educating the special
needs student in the regular classroom. Exceptional
children: Special education and pediatrics:
A New Relationship, 48 (4), 366-68.
Smith, J. D. (1998). Inclusion: Schools for
all students. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
Sprinthall, R.C., Schmutte, G.T., & Sirois,
L. (1991). Understanding educational research.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1996). Inclusion:
A guide for educators. Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks.
Vaughn, T., (1994). Can inclusion succeed? Equity
and Excellence in Education, 27(1), 68-69.
Wang, M. (1992). Adaptive education strategies:
Building on diversity. Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks.
Warger, C.L., Aldinger, L.E., & Okun, K.A.
(1983). Mainstreaming in the secondary school:
The role of the regular teacher. (pp. 5-35).
(Report No. SP 022 205). Phi Delta Kappa Educational
Foundation, Bloomington, IND. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 229 355).
Will, M. (1986). Educating students with learning
problems - A shared responsibility. Exceptional
Children, 52 , 411-415.
Williams, R.J., & Algozzine, B. (1979).
Teachers' attitudes toward mainstreaming. The
Elementary School Journal, 80 (2), 63-67.
Wood, J. W. (1998). Adapting instruction to
accommodate students in inclusive settings.
Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Zigmond, N., Jenkins, J., Fuchs, L., Deno, S.,
Fuchs, D., Baker, J., Jenkins, L. & Couthino,
M. (1995, March). Special education in restructured
schools: Findings from three multi-year studies.
Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 531-540.
Go
back to Title
Footnotes
1.
Severe Learning Disability (SLD) - A disorder
in one or more of the basic psychological
processes involved in understanding or in
using language, spoken or written, which may
manifest itself in an imperfect ability to
listen, think, speak, read, write spell, or
do mathematical calculations. The term includes
such conditions as perceptual handicaps, brain
injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia
and developmental aphasia. The term does not
include children who have learning problems
which are primarily the result of visual,
hearing or motor handicaps, of mental retardation,
of emotional disturbance or of environmental,
cultural or economic disadvantage (p. 13).
2. Developmentally Handicapped (DH) -
also referred to as Mental Retardation - Significantly
subaverage general intellectual functioning
existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive
behavior manifested during the developmental
period, which adversely affects a child's
educational performance (p. 5).
3. Severe Behavior Handicapped (SBH)
- A condition exhibiting one or more of the
following characteristics over a long period
of time and to a marked degree, which adversely
affects educational performance: (a) an inability
to learn, which cannot be explained by intellectual,
sensory or health factors; (b) an inability
to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal
relationships with peers and teachers; (c)
inappropriate types of behavior or feelings
under normal circumstances; (d) a general
pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression;
or (e) a tendency to develop physical symptoms
or fears associated with personal or school
problems. The term does not include children
who are socially maladjusted, unless it is
determined that they are severe behavior handicapped
(p. 11).
4. Multihandicapped (MH) - Having more
than one handicapping condition causing severe
educational problems which make it impossible
to accommodate the needs of the child in any
program but a program for multihandicapped
children. This may include deaf-blind, autistic
and moderately, severely or profoundly developmentally
handicapped children (p. 8).
Go
back to Title
Table 1
Go
back to Title
Table 2
|
