Let’s End The Debate About Including Students With Special N ✓ Solved

Lets End The Debate About Whether Toinclude Students With Severe Dis

Let's end the debate about whether to include students with severe disabilities in the general education classroom. Instead, the focus should be on how, when, and where to implement inclusion effectively. This article provides perspectives and suggestions for teachers, students, and parents aiming to deliver appropriate education for all students by exploring various integration options based on research.

Inclusion involves integrating students with disabilities into general education settings, guided by their individual education programs (IEPs). The law emphasizes the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE), promoting placement decision-making tailored to each student's needs. A range of placement options exists, from fully inclusive classrooms to more restrictive environments, with decisions grounded in the activities planned and the student's IEP goals.

Placement alone does not guarantee educational benefits. Effective inclusion depends on the type of activity and the objectives outlined in the student's IEP. Often, decisions about including students with severe disabilities focus on social integration, which may neglect the opportunity for content-area instruction. While social skills are crucial, instructional programming should prioritize meeting IEP objectives through content areas like science, social studies, and health, with appropriate adaptations and accommodations.

The article introduces a cascade of integration options, ranging from unadapted participation to specialized curricula outside the general classroom. These include:

• Unadapted participation in the general curriculum with no modifications.
• Participation with adaptations to meet objectives through minor modifications.
• Embedding skills within the general curriculum, addressing related objectives.
• Using the general education setting for functional curricula with appropriate modifications.
• Functional curricula outside the general education classroom, tailored to specific needs using specialized resources or settings.

Collaborative planning between general and special education teachers is essential. During preplanning, teachers analyze unit activities and student IEPs to determine suitable content and adaptations. In collaborative planning meetings, teachers decide on specific accommodations, supports needed, and methods to monitor progress.

Case examples, such as that of a student named Billy, illustrate how educators can tailor content area instruction to meet IEP objectives using various integration strategies within the cascade. For Billy, adaptations included social skills practice, content instruction, and functional activities, employed across different days and activities, with some objectives addressed in specialized settings if necessary.

Successful inclusion requires well-designed IEPs with clear objectives and ongoing collaboration, reflection, and adaptation. Inclusion is not about expecting students with disabilities to perform at the same level as peers without disabilities but providing meaningful opportunities to achieve individual goals within the general education framework. When teachers employ systematic planning and leverage the cascade of integration options, they can create inclusive environments that benefit all students academically and socially, fostering a truly equitable educational experience.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

In recent years, the movement towards inclusive education has gained significant momentum, emphasizing the importance of integrating students with severe disabilities into general education classrooms. This approach aligns with legislative mandates such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which advocates for the least restrictive environment (LRE) principle, supporting individualized placement decisions based on the unique needs of each student. However, the mere placement in a general education setting does not guarantee meaningful learning and social benefits. Effective inclusion requires thoughtful planning, collaboration among educators, and strategic use of a range of integration options, collectively termed the "cascade of integration."

The concept of inclusion has been widely interpreted within the educational community. Mastropieri and Scruggs (2000) define inclusion as the placement and support of students with disabilities within the general education classroom, emphasizing the importance of adaptations and accommodations to facilitate meaningful participation. This perspective recognizes that inclusion is not solely about physical placement but about modifying instruction to meet various student's needs. Such modifications can range from no changes, as in unadapted participation, to more restrictive options like specialized curricula outside the traditional classroom environment (Stainback & Stainback, 2000).

Research supports the belief that inclusive practices benefit not only students with disabilities but also their peers without disabilities. Kennedy, Shukla, and Fryxell (1997) documented improved social acceptance and self-esteem among students with severe disabilities in inclusive settings. Additionally, Mu, Siegel, and Allinder (2000) observed positive peer interactions and social skills development through participation in content-area instruction. Still, these benefits are maximized only when educators thoughtfully plan and implement appropriate strategies aligned with student IEP objectives.

The role of the IEP is central in guiding effective inclusion. It provides a personalized roadmap for instruction, specifying what students are expected to learn, how they will learn it, and how progress will be assessed (Jackson, Ryndak, & Billingsley, 2000). To facilitate successful inclusion, collaborative planning between general and special education teachers is vital. This collaboration involves preplanning activities, where teachers analyze curriculum objectives and student needs, and ongoing planning meetings to determine accommodations, supports, and progress monitoring strategies (Salend, 2001). Such teamwork ensures that instruction is tailored, meaningful, and aligned with the student's goals.

The "cascade of integration" offers a useful framework for decision-making. It includes five levels of participation:

1. Unadapted participation: The student engages in the standard curriculum without modifications. Teachers assess if the student can complete activities as written and meet lesson objectives.
2. Adapted curriculum: Minor modifications allow the student to meet objectives with adjustments like response mode or timing.
3. Embedded skills: The student participates in activities that contain components aligned with IEP objectives, even if these are not the primary focus.
4. Functional curriculum within the general classroom: The student engages in related but distinct activities that align with functional goals.
5. Functional curriculum outside the general classroom: The student participates in specialized activities better suited to their individual needs, often conducted outside the traditional classroom setting.

Practical application of this framework can be seen in case studies involving students like Billy, a sixth-grader with multiple IEP objectives spanning communication, socialization, motor skills, and functional academics. Teachers collaboratively analyze Billy's IEP and curriculum content to develop an inclusive plan that employs various levels of participation within the cascade. For example, Billy might participate in general education social studies with accommodations, engage in functional activities during physical education, and work on hygiene-related objectives in a specialized setting. Adaptations may include visual supports, assistive technology, structural modifications, and additional support personnel.

The success of such inclusive strategies depends on the clarity of the IEP, the flexibility of instructional practices, and ongoing communication among educators, parents, and related service providers. As the case of Billy demonstrates, employing a range of integration options enables students with severe disabilities to access meaningful content, develop social skills, and attain personal goals. This approach fosters a more inclusive, equitable educational environment where diversity is valued, and all students have opportunities to succeed.

In conclusion, the debate about whether students with severe disabilities should be included in general education classrooms should shift towards how best to implement inclusion. By utilizing the cascade of integration options, engaging in collaborative planning, and individualizing instruction based on IEPs, educators can create inclusive settings that promote growth for all students. When inclusion is thoughtfully executed, it benefits not just students with disabilities but enriches the educational experience for the entire school community, fostering understanding, acceptance, and academic achievement.

References

• Jackson, L., Ryndak, D. L., & Billingsley, F. (2000). Useful practices in inclusive education: A preliminary view of what experts in moderate to severe disabilities are saying. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 25(3), 153-164.
• Katsiyannis, A., Conderman, G., & Franks, D. J. (1995). State practices on inclusion: A national review. Remedial and Special Education, 16(4), 43-51.
• Kennedy, C. H., Shukla, S., & Fryxell, D. (1997). Comparing the effects of educational placement on the social relationships of intermediate school students with severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64(1), 31-47.
• Mu, K., Siegel, E. B., & Allinder, R. M. (2000). Peer interactions and sociometric status of high school students with moderate or severe disabilities in general education classrooms. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 25(3), 182-193.
• Sailor, W., Gee, K., & Karasoff, P. (2000). Inclusion and school restructuring. In M. E. Snell & F. Brown (Eds.), Instruction of students with severe disabilities (5th ed., pp. 31-66). Merrill.
• Salend, S. J. (2001). Creating inclusive classrooms: Effective and reflective practices. Merrill.
• Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (2000). Inclusion: A guide for educators. Paul H. Brookes.
• Thomas, S. B., & Rapport, M. J. K. (1998). The least restrictive environment: Understanding the directions of the courts. The Journal of Special Education, 32(2), 66-78.
• U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Twenty-second annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.
• Giangreco, M. F., Cloninger, C. J., & Iverson, V. S. (1998). Choosing outcomes and accommodations for children. Paul H. Brookes.