General Ed First: Inclusive Classrooms That Support Students with Disabilities

Action Research Project

Gina Lunsford

4/21/2013

ABSTRACT

Inclusion can be a successful program for the special education population for some, but not all students. For an inclusion based model to be successful in the regular education classroom environment, the model must include supports for the student’s individual and unique needs. Such supports include collaboration among students, staff, and parents to determine the best and most effective strategies in assisting the child in the least restrictive environment to be successful. This means constant communication is needed among the regular education teacher, the special education teacher, and the support staff such as instructional aides. Co-Teaching has been found to be crucial for students’ success in a mainstreamed environment. Teachers work as colleagues verses teachers in independent isolated classrooms.

In addition, the special education teacher is the most important support due to their expertise in differentiated instruction and the knowledge of the specific students needs as outlined in their IEP. The special education teacher provides guidance to the regular education teacher which is important to meeting the student’s specific learning needs.

The staff to student ratio is another important factor to promote success in an inclusion program. The student’s performance needs to be monitored through informal and formal assessments. One on one instruction is needed to assist the student grasp the academic content and was found essential in the inclusion based model.  

Research shows that when appropriate supports such as collaboration and co-teaching, student’s grades improved in the regular education setting. Regular education teachers have seen vast improvements in the student’s success due to an appropriate plan that included suitable accommodations such as extra time to complete assignments, student buddy study teams, and homework supports. Research also showed that students built positive social relationships as an outcome of the inclusion based educational model in contrary to the misconception found in the literature of socialization. This research action project was conducted at Denison High School, Denison, Texas.

TITLE AND AUTHOR

General Ed First: Inclusive Classrooms That Promote Success for Students with Disabilities

Gina G. Lunsford

Lamar University

INTRODUCTION

Inclusion remains a controversial concept in education because it relates to educational and social values, as well as to our sense of individual worth.

Any discussion about inclusion should address several important questions:

·         Do we value all children equally?

·         What do we mean by "inclusion"?

·         Are there some children for whom "inclusion" is inappropriate?

There are advocates on both sides of the issue. Some argue 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.

On the other side 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.

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.

While recognizing that there are no simple answers, this paper attempts to give an overview of the concept of inclusion and offers a set of recommendations that can help to ensure that we meet the needs of all students.

Definitions

In order to discuss the concept of inclusion, it is first necessary to have a common vocabulary. Research Bulletin Number 11, 1993, from Phi Delta Kappa's Center for Evaluation, Development, and Research provides a useful set of definitions. The following have been edited for clarity.

Mainstreaming
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. This concept is closely linked to traditional forms of special education service delivery.

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.

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, it also should be understood 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.

Does Federal Law Require Inclusion?

Two federal laws govern education of children with disabilities. Neither requires inclusion, but both require that a significant effort be made to find an inclusive placement.

IDEA
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as amended in 2004, does not require inclusion. Instead, the law requires that children with disabilities be educated in the "least restrictive environment appropriate” to meet their “unique needs.” And the IDEA contemplates that the "least restrictive environment" analysis will begin with placement the regular education classroom.

However, IDEA recognizes that it is not appropriate to place all children in the regular education classroom. Therefore, the law requires school districts to have a “continuum of placements” available, extending from the regular education classroom to residential settings, in order to accommodate the needs of all children with disabilities. Using the continuum concept makes it more likely that each child would be placed appropriately in an environment that is specifically suited to meet his/her needs. The law intends that the degree of “inclusion” be driven by the student’s needs as determined by the IEP team, not by the district’s convenience or the parents’ wishes.

In developing the Individual Education Program (IEP) for a child with disabilities, IDEA requires the IEP team to consider placement in the regular education classroom as the starting point in determining the appropriate placement for the child. If the IEP team determines that the "least restrictive environment" appropriate for a particular child is not the regular education classroom for all or part of the IEP, the IEP team must include an explanation in the IEP as to why the regular education classroom is not appropriate.

The purpose of these requirements is to carry out the intent of the IDEA, which is to educate as many students with disabilities as possible in the regular education classroom, while still meeting their unique, individual needs.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
Section 504 requires that a recipient of federal funds provide for the education of each qualified handicapped person in its jurisdiction with persons who are not handicapped to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs of the handicapped person.

A recipient is required to place a student with disabilities in the regular educational environment unless it is demonstrated by the recipient that the education in the regular environment with the use of supplementary aides and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.

Because the categories of disabilities covered by the IDEA have expanded during the past two reauthorizations in 1997 and 2004, Section 504 is less frequently used to obtain access to public education for students with disabilities.

Court decisions provide guidelines governing placement under IDEA

Even after several reauthorizations of IDEA, most recently in 2004, federal law leaves several questions unanswered, including three significant ones:

• How far must schools go?
• How important is potential academic achievement/social growth in making placement decisions?
• What are the rights of the other children?

Guidelines established by federal court decisions provide school districts with some measure of what is expected of them in determining the appropriate placement for children with disabilities.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Over the years, the purpose of special education has been and still is to provide needed supports, services, adaptation, and accommodations to students with disabilities. These supports are given to preserve and enhance a child’s educational participation in the least restrictive environment. Special education has changed over the years with the passage of the 1975 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and its 1997 amendments. The landmark legislation moved children with special needs from segregated classrooms into regular classrooms. The traditional model of special education required bringing the child to the special education services and now the inclusive model of special education requires bringing the special education services to the child.

Legislation requires schools to make a significant effort to find an inclusive solution for all children. Rogers (1993) states that in recent years, federal courts have interpreted these rules as follows: Children with very severe disabilities must be included in the classroom they would otherwise attend if not disabled even when they cannot do the academic work of the class, if there is a potential social benefit, if the class would stimulate the child’s linguistic development, or if the other students could provide appropriate role models for the student.

Although the 1997 reauthorization of IDEA did not actually use the term inclusion, it effectively codified the principle and practice of inclusion by requiring that students Individualized Education Program (IEP) ensure access to the general education curriculum. This landmark reauthorization broadened the concept of inclusion to include academic, as well as physical and social, access to general education instruction and experiences (Villa & Thousand, 2003, para. 6).

Inclusion is successful when all staff members in a school system accept the challenge to work together and to do their fair share of educating for all children regardless of whether they are regular education students or special education students. The decision to move toward inclusive practices demands a commitment not only to inclusive education but also to an ongoing process of evaluation and change. If we are to achieve successful examples of inclusion, we need to recognize that deep structural and curricular change is incremental – we need to be tolerant of that process (Burstein, Sears, Wilcoxen, Cabello & Spagna, 2004, para. 65).

More useful outcomes of inclusion are likely to result when the staff of a school works together to determine how it can meet the needs of specific children (Rogers, 1993, p. 6). Research by Burstein et al. (2004) has identified strategies that promote inclusion and include building a strong commitment for change, planning for change, preparing personnel for change, and providing supports that promote and maintain change (para. 5). Inclusion should be implemented with proper attitudes, accommodations and adaptations in place (Kavale, 2002, p. 208).

As Burstein et al. (2004) states, “inclusion is not something that simply happens, but something that requires careful thought and preparation… implemented with proper attitudes, accommodations, and adaptations in place” (para. 10). Inclusive education is most easily introduced in school communities that have already restructured to meet the needs of their increasingly diverse student populations in regular education (Villa & Thousand, 2003, para. 10).

There are many needs of an inclusive school but the current needs include administrative support, at both district and school levels, professional development for general and special educators, time for teachers to plan, meet, create and evaluate the students together, professional skill development in areas such as cooperative learning, peer tutoring, adaptive curriculum and varied learning styles, and collaboration between parents, teachers and administrators (Burstein et al., 2004, para. 9). Burstein et al. (2004) states that, “unsupported full inclusion is worse than no full inclusion at all” (para. 53). According to Rogers (1993), schools that embrace inclusion are generally the ones that already promote instructional practices that are designed to provide challenging learning environments for children with diverse learning characteristics anyway (pg. 4).

When fully integrated applications of learning strategies designed originally for students with specific learning disabilities have been implemented, scores on NCLB – sanctioned accountability measures for all students have increased. Where social development is an issue, the use of school-wide positive behavior support has led to higher standardized test scores for general education students (Sailor & Rogers, 2005, p. 505). Teachers who are guided by their values, beliefs, and attitudes toward change must be convinced that a particular change is worthwhile and understand the reasons behind it (Burstein et al., 2004, para. 6). The most effective forms of inclusion are school-based programs that encourage the participation of teachers in the planning and decision-making process. “School-based programs take advantage of the individual talents and involvement of teachers in meeting the needs of the students and families they serve” (Burstein et al., 2004, para. 7).

In an inclusive school, special education teachers do not have their own classrooms, but are assigned to other roles such as team teaching in classrooms that serve both special education and non-special education students together. “School personnel must stop thinking and acting in isolated ways and stop saying “these are my students and those are your students.” They must relinquish traditional roles, drop distinct professional labels, and redistribute their job functions across the system” (Villa & Thousand, 2003, para. 16). Both special education and regular educators must be prepared to deal with special education students. Burstein et al. (2004) states that in an inclusive classroom, each special education teacher works on a team with the general education teacher. General educators and special educators plan and implement the curriculum and together they provide support to students with and without disabilities who need assistance. This support takes several forms – providing brief individual assistance during independent or group work time, pulling a small group aside for reteaching, or adapting assignments (para. 28).

There are just two kinds of teachers in an inclusive school: classroom teachers and support teachers, instead of the classic separation of regular education teacher and special education teacher. According to Fink (2004), all previously labeled special education teachers become classroom teachers and team teach alongside the previously labeled regular education teacher (p. 273). The union of these two types of teachers also requires collaboration. “When a Success of classroom has more than one teacher and each teacher shares equal control, some important components should be discussed between the two teachers. These components include each teacher’s educational philosophy, his / her concept of teamwork and also an instructional philosophy” (Fink, 2004, p. 273).

All the success of an inclusive program can not be entirely placed on the school system itself. Some pressure must also be placed on the individual teacher to do his / her part in making inclusion successful. Rogers (1993) states that, “Good teachers maximize the opportunities for all students to learn even though they may be learning at different levels” (p. 4). Teachers who support inclusion will help their included students to accomplish just as many of the classroom goals and also to function just as close as possible to the way that their peers function. Rogers (1993) states that, “The best teachers in inclusive classrooms are simply the best teachers. The best teachers teach each individual student rather than trying to gear instruction to the average of a group. The best teachers have a high degree of “with-itness,” that is, they are highly aware of the dynamics of their classrooms. The best teachers are versatile. They are comfortable using many different teaching techniques and can readily shift among them as needed” (p. 6).

Considerable evidence has indicated that both general and special educators feel inadequately prepared to serve students with disabilities in general education classrooms. Many regular education teachers are not trained to provide diversified instructional methods (Roberts & Mather, 1995, p. 50). To facilitate confidence and competence, “teachers need systematic and intensive training that includes research-based best practices in inclusive schools” (Burstein et. al, 2004, para. 8). Teachers must engage in professional education as an ongoing part of their professional role (Fisher, Frey & Thousand., 2003, para. 13).

A number of areas of professional development are important but research done by Fisher et al. (2003) states that five high priory focus areas have emerged. These areas include collaborative teaming and teaching, curricular and instructional modifications and accommodations, personal supports, assistive technology and positive behavioral supports (para. 16).

A leadership team is also beneficial and should be made up of eight to 12 members. Members should represent all school personnel and may also include parents and members of the local community. This team undertakes the process of school-centered planning. The team evaluates data related to student academic outcomes and social performance. They prioritize specific interventions in order to improve student outcomes and then compare the data (Sailor & Rogers, 2005, pp. 507). The work done by the team helps to advance the mission of the school’s inclusive process. The team is able to then network with and report to the other teams and committees that function at different levels throughout the school.

According to Villa and Thousand’s (2003) research, administrators must take action to publicly articulate the new vision of inclusion, build consensus for the vision, and lead all stakeholders to active involvement. In a study of 32 inclusive school sites, Villa and Thousand (2003) found that the degree of administrative support and vision was the most powerful predictor of general educators‟ attitudes toward inclusion (para. 13). Villa and Thousand (2003) state that administrators can provide four types of support identified as important by general and special educators: personal and emotional (being willing to listen to concerns); informational (providing training and technical assistance); instrumental (creating time for teachers to meet); and appraisal (giving constructive feedback related to implementation of new practices) (Villa & Thousand, 2003, para. 14).

Successful inclusion is dependent on the amount of support given to classroom teachers, students and parents. The general education curriculum should be modified to meet the diverse needs and learning styles of all students, teachers must assess students‟ needs and modify the curriculum accordingly and teacher training and in-service are needed to help teachers acquire the skills necessary to teach a diverse group of students (Roberts & Mather, 1995, pp. 49-50).

ACTION RESEARCH DESIGN

SUBJECTS, PROCEDURES, DATA COLLECTION

Qualitative data collection was used as the main research method for this study. Data collection, findings, reflections and actions were documented for each stage of the research process. Thirty-four staff members were given questionnaires, surveys and check-lists about the inclusive practices in their school system and individual classrooms. Out of the thirty-four staff members, twenty-four staff members consented to participate in the study and returned their data to the researcher.

The development of this research project occurred at two levels. The first level focused on the entire high school and its beliefs and values about inclusive practices. The second level focused on an individual staff level and the gathering of data about individual teacher’s knowledge and skills associated with inclusion. Strong collaborative practices between the two levels were extremely important to make this project successful. The data collection methods that were used include:

Establishment of existing teacher knowledge and understanding about inclusion utilizing notes taken from group discussions in staff meetings, questionnaires and surveys given to the entire elementary staff and teacher check-lists about inclusive practices in their classroom.

Creation of a list of problem areas of inclusion, based on data attained from the discussions, questionnaires, surveys and check-lists.

FINDINGS

Two problematic areas of focus emerged from the analysis of the collected data. These four themes were; a general definition of inclusion and what the staff members understood inclusion to mean within a school system, the proper utilization of inclusion in the school system, school-wide training on the use of inclusion, and the need for additional support to make inclusion work in a school system.

The first problematic area that emerged from the data was a general definition of inclusion and what the staff members understood inclusion to mean within a school system. Out of the 24 questionnaires returned by participants in the study, a wide range of definitions were stated after answering the question, “What is your definition of inclusion?” As seen in the list of actual definitions given by staff members in Table 1, the definitions ranged from simple statements such as Staff Response 2, “Allowing a child with a disability to be included in the classroom and classroom activities” and Staff Response 18, “The ability of a classroom to meet and enhance all student needs” to more complex statements such as Staff Response 7, “Inclusion education is supposed to bind children together in a classroom community no matter what their strengths or weaknesses might be. It takes a commitment to educate each child within a classroom to meet all the needs.” and Staff Response 20, “Students being placed in the general education classroom to participate with their peers at a level that is appropriate for that student. The amount of time that the student receives special education services in the inclusive classroom must also be appropriate for the child while meeting their individual needs”.

Based on the variety of definitions given by staff members, the general trend shows that although the staff members may have their own unique definition of inclusion, the school system itself never presented the staff members with a universal, clear or concise definition of inclusion that everyone could use for school-wide collaboration. As stated earlier, a school must engage in collaborative, team-driven decision making that is focused on interventions designed to enhance academic and social outcomes for all students. Without the clear groundwork of inclusion being laid out for the staff members before inclusive practices in a school system begin, and without a clear, concise definition of inclusion, it is difficult to engage in collaborative, team-driven decision making that focuses on all students.

Table 1. Definition of Inclusion  Staff Response	What is your definition of inclusion?
1	Resource teacher / special education teacher / Title I teacher aides in the classroom during instruction time and study time to help teach regular education concepts.
2	Allowing a child with a disability to be included in the classroom and classroom activities.
3	The Special education teacher is in the classroom with the regular education teacher instead of pulling the student(s) out of their regular classroom.
4	Students with special needs are included in the classroom.
5	All services are provided to all students within the regular classroom. The classroom teacher remains the primary person responsible for each child’s education.
6	All children are included in the same learning environment. This includes all students, classroom teacher, resource teachers, support staff and administration.
7	Inclusion education is suppose to bind children together in a classroom community no matter what their strengths or weaknesses might be. It takes a commitment to educate each child within a classroom to meet all the needs.
8	Creating a classroom atmosphere in which all students are able to succeed due to the presence and participation of other classroom (sped) teachers.
9	To include the special education students into a classroom setting where they feel most comfortable and can achieve success at their learning level.
10	The practice of educating children in the same classroom, Including children with physical and developmental needs.
11	Making the curriculum in the classroom available and attainable by all.
12	Working together as a team to support learning and growth of all students in a regular classroom setting. Supporting individual students.
13	A student who is identified or has an IEP that receives services within the regular classroom. The student doesn’t get pulled out of the regular classroom to receive services.
14	Students with disabilities being involved in the classroom instead of being pulled out. Special education teachers team teaching with regular education teachers.
15	Including all students gifted and disabled in the regular classroom and activities, but with differential instruction.
16	When special education students stay in the regular classroom instead of being pulled out into a special education room.
17	A heterogeneous group including all learning levels (regular education, Title I, special education, etc.)

The second problematic area that emerged from the data was the need for additional school-wide support. The need for additional support shows up when reading repetitive staff member’s responses. Staff Response 1 states, “we do not have enough staff to adequately cover inclusion and schedules are too tight to allow flexibility”. Staff Response 15 states, “Some classrooms are not receiving the help they need because of scheduling issues with the special education staff”. Staff Response 17 states, “We do not have the man-power to do inclusion properly;” and finally Staff Response 20 states, “we need more staff (paraprofessionals) to meet the needs of those students”.

In addition to the need for more support staff, staff members also feel that time to plan with the special education staff, staff training and an overall school inclusion plan are high on the list of needs, as well. All current staff members need to be trained on how to make inclusion work when numerous teachers are present in the classroom (special education teacher, paraprofessionals and parents) and also when only one teacher is present in the classroom. “Inclusion without resources, without support, without teacher commitment, without teacher training, without a chance to get questions answered and without extra classroom materials to make it work – won’t work! I feel that is why it hasn’t worked completely for us at our school,” (Staff Member Comment in a Staff Meeting). Many staff members have unanswered questions about inclusion that need to be answered in order to teach inclusion effectively. The following list of additional needs, questions and / or concerns was also generated by the staff members when asked the question, “What else would you like to know about inclusion?”

·         Is the inclusion of child with a paraprofessional a distraction to the teacher and to the learning of others?

·         Is inclusion beneficial for a special education child if the child is not grasping the concept?

·         If a child is removed for one on one learning time, is this inclusion?

·         Is there a way to utilize full inclusion for the majority of the time but still do a little pull-out when necessary?

·         What is the percentage of schools in the area and in Nebraska who utilize 100% inclusion?

·         How are other schools successfully implementing inclusion?

·         If other schools are utilizing full inclusion, what are the student/teacher ratios?

·         If other schools are utilizing full inclusion, what kind of support staff is available (number of special education teachers, paraprofessionals, parent volunteers, etc.)?

·         If other schools are utilizing full inclusion, what type of grading system and student progress reports do they use?

·         How do you advocate for all students (with inclusion)?

·         How do you keep challenging every child (with inclusion)?

·         How do you keep the high-ability learners challenged?

·         How do you handle the situations where the least restrictive learning environment is not the regular classroom?

·         How do you reach the high, middle and low ability students all the time?

·         What is the evidence that proves inclusion is the best teaching method for all students?

·         What types of intervention can be done to help all students with particular needs?

·         How do you implement full inclusion at the junior and senior high level?

·         How do you convince the junior and senior high staff that inclusion is partly their responsibility every day?

·         Are there workshops available for staff and paraprofessionals on inclusion?

·         What, if any, adaptations are there for state assessment tests?

·         How do you appropriately explain to other the regular students the reason some students get to do different (easier) tasks than the rest of the class?

·         What should inclusion look like?

·         How do you set up a classroom to best utilize inclusion?

·         What are the typical roles of the special education teacher and the regular classroom teacher?

·         How do the teachers make the time to plan and team teach when the time isn’t given to them during the school day?

·         Anything and everything!

·         How can I implement differentiated instruction, modifications, etc. so that it’s “fair” for all students?

·         What are other teacher’s perceptions and beliefs about inclusion in our school system?

·         How do you involve parents more?

·         How do we make sure that special education students reach their IEP goals and objectives when the regular education students are already way beyond that goal and are ready to move on? In some cases, wouldn’t a pull-out program be the best option for these students?

·         How “above-grade-level students” are negatively and positively affected?

·         Do our average students gain?

·         Has a comparison study ever been done between the groups of students in each homeroom? (Groups: special education students, average ability students, high ability students, and the group that is below grade level but receives little or no assistance due to lack of qualification and few support staff

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the themes and problem areas that have emerged from this study, our school plans to make a vital action plan to confront the issues facing the future of inclusion within our school system. Two focus groups (based on the 2 problem areas defined in the analysis of data) are being formed at our school to discuss, analyze and move forward with a plan of action to help teachers better understand inclusion. The focus groups will act as a liaison between teachers and the administration in order to intervene and begin the implementation process of defining inclusion. They will also create a list of roles for both special education teachers and general education teachers, train staff members on inclusion, answer questions and concerns about inclusion and create a list of additional inclusive needs of the staff members.

The focus groups will meet to problem solve the specific themes or problematic area. After initial problem solving, the focus groups will come together to create an Inclusion Committee that will then create a larger scale comprehensive plan. The larger scale plan will be implemented over the summer and carry into the school year. Training will remain an on-going process throughout the school year. As part of the on-going process, the Inclusion Committee will continue to have once a month follow-up meeting to continue training and support within the school system. The committee will also manage and document all changes in the comprehensive plan.

After initial implementation of teacher training and support, the Inclusion

Committee will begin to analyze special education and non-special education student data collected from the time periods before and after implementation of the comprehensive plan in order to determine the effectiveness of the action plan. Data collected will come from standardized tests scores, state standard assessment scores, STAAR End of Course scores, benchmark and common assessments, and informal assessments. The committee will summarize the research and present long-term goals to the school-board, administration, teachers and staff for continued teacher training and support in inclusion.

If implemented correctly, inclusion improves learning for both special education students and non-special education students and helps children learn to accept individual differences. Inclusion is not just about including children with disabilities into the regular education classroom. It is about the whole idea of diversity and understanding that diversity is a reality in the educational system in the United States. Through this understanding of diversity, the educational system of modern day will come to see each child as a unique learner. In order for each child to benefit from his or her experiences, schools need to organize the whole idea of education with curriculum and teaching in mind. By adapting the curriculum to meet the needs of special education students, teachers will also adapt the curriculum to closely meet the individual needs of each student in the class.

The diversity of children in today’s schools is often already very great. The inclusion of a child with a disability into this mix is most likely to add one child who has more needs than the others, but not needs that are more severe than needs already represented in the class (Rogers, 1993, p. 6). An inclusive school educates all students and provides them with appropriate educational experiences that are challenging, yet geared toward their individual capabilities and needs. Rogers (1993) states that, “when done with care, inclusion does not create unreasonable demands on teachers or deprive classmates of learning opportunities. Inclusive classrooms offer some benefits for all who participate” (p. 4). Roberts and Mather (1995) sum up inclusion by saying, “The law says FAPE… not FIPE, a „free inclusive public education. A student must not be placed in the regular education classroom without a school system having a plan of action and without sufficient student assistance” (p. 53).

REFERENCES

Burstein, N., Sears, S., Wilcoxen, A., Cabello, B., & Spagna, M. (2004).

Moving Toward Inclusive Practices. Remedial and Special Education, 25(2), 104-116. http://hwwilsonweb.com

Fink, J. (2004).

Conclusions on Inclusion. The Clearing House, 77(6), 272-274. http://hwwilsonweb.com

Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Thousand, J. (2003).

What Do Special Educators Need to Know and Be Prepared to Do for Inclusive Schooling to Work? Teacher Education and Special Education, 26(1), 42-50. http://hwwilsonweb.com

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (1995).

Counterpoint: Special Education – Ineffective? Immoral? Exceptional Children, 61(3), 303-306

Kavale, K. (2002).

Mainstreaming to Full Inclusion: From Orthogenesis to Pathogenesis of an Idea [Electronic version]. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 49(2), 201-214.

Roberts, R., & Mather, N. (1995).

The Return of Students with Learning Disabilities to Regular Classrooms: A Sellout? Learning Disabilities Research and Practice: A Publication of the Division for Learning Disabilities, Council for Exceptional Children, 10(1), 46-58.

Rogers, J. (1993).

The Inclusion Revolution [Electronic version]. Phi Delta Kappa - The Research Bulletin, 11, 1-6.

Sailor, W., & Roger, B. (2005).

Rethinking Inclusion: School Wide Applications [Electronic version]. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(7), 503-509.

Villa, R.A., & Thousand, J.S., (2003).

Making Inclusive Education Work. Educational Leadership, 61(2), 19-23. http://hwwilsonweb.com